Muqaabil

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Well done on the jungle etymology, however, a couple of formatting issues: First, it's best to use the native scripts for etymons (although a Romanization is a useful supplement) and we also wikify etymons. Take a look at some of the changes I made to jungle. I don't know what the Sanskrit is, and so I've left it (with a request for the proper script at the bottom). If you know it, please feel free to add it and remove the Category:Articles which need Devanagari script from the bottom. Thanks again. Atelaes 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Are you an admin? I need some help. Muqaabil 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am. What can I do for you? Atelaes 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jungle

Before you go and revert again, perhaps you might want to read this & this. Your edit war is against three admins, you have little chance unless you try and convince us with something a bit better than "it's what dictionary.com says". Atelaes 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my actions seemed like some kind of a "war". I am just trying to make a ‎point. The usage of the word Hindustani is extremely controversial as it is considered an ‎almost ancient language which has become obsolete. If you examine the history of Urdu, ‎you will find that the usage of word Urdu for a language began years before the word ‎Hindi, in a sense making Urdu a parent language of Hindi. However, I have checked ‎many major dictionaries and none of them make any reference to so-called Hindustani. ‎Even at Wikipedia, the usage of Hindustani has caused fierce debates. I think Hindustani ‎is more of a political term than neutral. The pronunciation of Jungle is different in Urdu ‎and Hindi. I have tried to use a standard character ("n" with a dot above it; see Hindi pronunciation at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jungle) which marks ‎the difference; however, I have failed to do so far. I stress that a distinction should be kept ‎between Urdu and Hindi and they should not be merged into the political terminology of ‎Hindustani. I would also suggest that you see the entry for "jungle" in Franklin Merriam-Webster's Colligiate Dictionary which I am using as my major source. Secondly, I would like to make some major changes to the template for Urdu ‎word. It uses an awkward font which blows the size of the character out of proportions. ‎Can we stop using this template if modification is impossible? Thank you! Muqaabil 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)‎

Don't worry about the "warring", as it's rather common practice at Wiktionary. Good debate produces better results. Would you mind if I reposted your comments at User talk:Dijan and User talk:Stephen G. Brown? They are really the resident experts on these subjects. I largely got involved by chance. Also, you might want to take a look at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Dictionary.com and perhaps add your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Atelaes 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to just butt in, but, I have to intervene and defend Hindustani on several grounds. Starting from Hindustani being a "political" term: the exact same can be said of modern Urdu and Hindi. Hindi does not exist in Pakistan. Why? Political reasons? Maybe because it is associated with India. Now, Urdu (same thing), is only associated with Muslims, especially in India. Political reasons? I would say so. Now, about the dictionaries that you use as your sources. I agree. They do not use terms like "Hindustani". Why? Because they want to be "politically" correct. Oftentimes, we see in such dictionaries ONLY "Urdu" or ONLY "Hindi". Why? Because the writers of such dictionaries have political views and maybe not linguistic views on the language in question. Or maybe because the question of Urdu and Hindi is a very controversial one that most people out of simplicity and political reasons choose to label certain words (ex: words pertaining to Sanskrit and Hinduism; words pertaining to Arabic, Persian and Islam) as Hindi and Urdu, respectively. Secondly, since you're throwing dictionary.com around here as your main source, I'll use Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's articles on Hindi and Urdu, the term Hindi (or Hindavi) was in use long before the term Urdu. Urdu did not come into use until 1600s. (This is all from Wikipedia.) Thirdly, yes, the term Hindustani has caused many debates on Wikipedia. Why? Because we have people who support the term Urdu and people who support the term Hindi. Belief in extreme linguistical separation of the two languages in question will cause such debates. Like I told Atelaes, same is going on for Serbo-Croatian (which is my native language). You should read a little bit on that and see the similarities between Urdu/Hindi (Hindustani) debate and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin and Serbo-Croatian debate. Fourthly, pronunciation that you are talking about (nasalized "n") is common in both Urdu and Hindi. It is not only a Hindi feature. In Urdu, ja.ngal is spoken exactly as it is in Hindi. Now, why does Hindi have a dot? Because the Devanagari script is able to show nasalization by use of the "bindi" or "chandrabindi". Urdu, its script NOT native to it, does not show nasalization (because it was not designed to do so). I'm not saying that Urdu does not ever display nasalization, because it does, through the undotted "n" ں. But, this "n" is only used in certain words and ONLY at the end of those words. If the nasalization occurs in the middle of words, due to the nature of computerized ں, it is automatically converted to ن. Same goes for written texts so as to not cause any confusion. Same goes for ے. In type, this form occurs ONLY at the end of words. In the middle, the character is converted (same is true for writing) to ی. And lastly, the Urdu template is fine as it is. Granted, it is not in Nastaliq, which would be ideal for Urdu (although many here can read Naskh, but not Nastaliq). However, it is not too disproportional as you claim. Maybe on your computer it appears as such. Most users here cannot read Arabic script if left at 100%. It appears too small. If you wish, you may appeal to the community for such a change, although, I doubt that they will agree to it, seeing that Arabic, Persian, Sindhi, and Pashto all use similar templates for the same reason. خدا حافظ. --Dijan 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that nasal "n" occurs or doesn't occur in Arabic. I was clearly stating that nasalized "n" (as you pointed out, the dot in Devanagari script) occurs in Urdu as well. Sukun (jazm) has nothing to do with this conversation. --Dijan 20:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindustani already encompasses Urdu and Hindi, which is why it is preferable. There's no need to include two separate terms. That was what I meant. --Dijan 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy of my message to Dijan

I am feeling a kind of contempt for Wikipedia in your post. I do not trust Wikipedia, ‎‎especially on controversial topics such as Hindustani etc. Such topics are in control of ‎‎powerful political groups; hence, the material is extremely biased and questionable. I ‎‎stress on the usage of Urdu and Hindi because, when Jungle was introduced in English, ‎‎Hindustani did not exist but Urdu and Hindi did. The usage of Hindustani is a ‎‎provocative reference to pre-1947 India which is wrong in every way.‎ We should not create our ‎own rules and should follow the established rules of established dictionaries. I do not ‎think dictionary.com should be rejected with such force. It always cites highly credible ‎sources and combines them on one page.‎

By the way, I find your analysis of Urdu and its script a little bit flawed. I can read ‎‎Arabic very well, although I do not understand all of it. In Arabic, nasal n never occurs at ‎‎the end of a word; however, it often occurs inside words where a "jazam" (diacritic) is ‎‎used (not necessary to write, although its existence is always understood). Urdu script ‎follows the same tradition.‎ Muqaabil 09:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)‎

The usage of Hindustani in Indian and Pakistani English may be different from American English. In American English, Hindustani is not a controversial term and does not refer to some historic period. Hindustani is the lingua franca that includes Hindi and Urdu. There isn’t a note of politics connected to the word, it is simply an ordinary language name.

I’m not sure of the Urdu word "jazam"...it will be something else in Arabic. There is an old word "jazma", usually called sukun, which is a little circle: Template:ARchar. If this is the diacritic you mean, it does not indicate nasalization in Arabic, it means that the consonant is cut short (i.e., it has no vowel). —Stephen 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Transliterations (from Stephen's discussion)

Is it necessary or optional to add transliterations for translations in non-roman scripts. e.g. Arabic or Urdu scripts? Muqaabil 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially for the Asian languages, since knowing the alphabet is usually not enough to get the correct pronunciation. This is the English Wiktionary, which means its users are Americans, Britons, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians, and these people usually need to have transliterations. —Stephen 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary, but it is preferable to include transliterations. --Dijan 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do not include transliterations, that is fine. No one will come and delete your work.  :) So, do not worry about that. --Dijan 18:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sanskrit" terms in Urdu

Please do not remove terms derived from Sanskrit in URDU and claim that they're not Urdu. They are Urdu words, whether you like it or not! You claim that you're a native Urdu speaker, however you seem to be familiar ONLY with Persian/Arabic derived terms. Please, stop removing native URDU terms or you will be blocked for violations and vandalism. --Dijan 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I will give you a reference. For the word calendar, Ferozsons English to Urdu dictionary (printed in Pakistan, might I add) lists جنتری (jantrī) as the FIRST word! Also, words that might not be spoken as Urdu in Pakistan, are however considered as Urdu in Hyderabad, where many Sanskrit terms have been preserved. So, please stop removing those terms, as they ARE considered Urdu. --Dijan 04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)