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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Wyang (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pali references/quotationsEdit

Hi, thanks for your Pali edits! Unfortunately, you are misusing templates and you aren't formatting references correctly. For examples, see my changes here. I will clean up after you for now, but please play closer attention to the format of existing entries and the entries I've fixed. Thanks. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 15:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, unfortunately I don't fully understand you. Looking at the changes to ᨴᩮᩅ, I understand the following:
  1. I shouldn't have missed out {{pi-noun}}. I'll have to check I haven't been doing that systematically.
  2. The evidence of spelling goes under references, rather than the quotation region for the meaning.

I don't understand what you mean by 'misusing templates'. The content added by {{pi-From Sai Kam Mong 241desitam}} has also been added to the entries for ᨷᩤᨷ and ᩉᩥᨲ. I had intended to also use it for other words once their Roman script entry had been created. I thought we were supposed to use templates for repeated content.

Yes, but you should never make a template for every single page of a reference work. Wiktionary is not a repository for quotations, quotations only serve the purpose of showing an entry's attestation. I have removed that template and its transclusions and replaced it with the general purpose {{quote}} template. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
1. You should see that we use different head templates for lemma forms and non-lemma forms, that is base forms and inflected forms. The result is correct categorization. hazards is categorized as “English non-lemma forms” because it is not what a paper dictionary would have, just inflection of hazard which is in “English lemmas”.
2. Look into Category:Arabic reference templates to see how good templates look. We even create templates for whole authors, see {{R:ota:Meninski}}, see {{RQ:Deschner}}. This eases quoting and citing. Creating a template for every page does not ease anything. But I can easily give links with good templates made for frequent use. {{R:ota:Meninski}} automatically links pages just with the column number given. But the quoted text itself is generally to be typed into each entry. Fay Freak (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the examples of their use I could find actually gives the quotation. Are you implying that rather than typing the quotation, its transcription and its transliteration, I could attest the spelling of the Tai Tham form of deva by just saying, in the references, "<book citation> p241, line 7 (line beginning 'desitaṃ')", albeit with 'desitaṃ' in the script in which it is written? (I would quote the start of the line because counting lines consistently is not as easy as it sounds.)
What do you mean by, "But the quoted text itself is generally to be typed into each entry". Are you agreeing with that assertion? The reason for the multiple templates is that I need to quote the relevant text. Are you suggesting that instead I have a single template that takes a page and chunk number as arguments, and selects the relevant text, transliteration and translation? I've realised that emboldening is a complicating issue, but i can see ways of handling it using a Lua module. - RichardW57 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
By the quoted text itself is generally to be typed into each entry I mean that you attest by typing the quotation, its transcription and its transliteration into each entry. But a reference to a book (website, whatever) you use often can be eased by templates made for this book. {{RQ:Deschner|KKK}} is easier to use than {{quote-book}} repeating the bibliographical information each time. Yes, {{RQ:Deschner}} is a single template that takes a page number as argument, and even a book identificator because it is for all books of this author. It is made without Lua. You see in heutig how it is used. Tip: On a template page look at “What links here” in the sidebar to see examples. Fay Freak (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I had one core template with biblographic detail, now modified and renamed to {{RQ:pi:Sai Kam Mong}}, but then called {{pi-From Sai Kam Mong}} and containing provision for the actual quotation:
{{#if:{{{p|}}}|#*}}{{cite book
{{#if:{{{q|}}}|#*:  {{{q}}}}}
{{#if:{{{tr|}}}|#*: {{{tr}}}}}
{{#if:{{{t|}}}|#*:: {{{t}}}}}<noinclude>
The entries then invoked the now deleted {{pi-From Sai Kam Mong 241desitam}}, which, shorn of comments and obligatory documentation, looked something like:
{{pi-From Sai Kam Mong
|q = ᨴᩮᩈᩥᨲᩴ ᨴᩮᩣ* ᨴᩮᩅᩮᨶ ᩈᨻᩛᨷᩤᨷᩅᩥᨶᩣᩈᨶᩴ ᩈᨻᩛᩃᩮᩣᨠ ᩉᩥᨲᨲ᩠ᨳᩣᨿ ᨾᩘᨣᩃᩴ ᨲᩴ ᨽᨱᩣᨾᩉᩮ ᪩<br/>*Should be ᨴᩮᩅ, and is treated as such below.
|tr= desitaṃ devadevena sabbapāpa vināsanaṃ sabbaloka-hitatthāya maṅgalaṃ taṃ bhaṇāmahe
|t = The Lord of the devas taught that which destroys all evil, for the benefit of the whole world: let us recite those blessings.
Now, if one viewed this template outside the editor, it would of course show the bibliographic data, but the bibliographic data only resided in one template and the Wiktionary caches. Did I perhaps err by not using templates for the documentation pages?
There is one problem with this template that I had not addressed. For the alternative form of 'deva', I need to embolden 'devadevena' (or 'deva' or 'devena'); for the alternative form of 'pāpa', I need to embolden 'pāpa', and for the alternative form of 'hita' I need to embolden some or all of 'hitatthāya'. I was planning ultimately to use this quotation for another four or so words. I understand that complex string manipulation is best done with Lua.
@AryamanA, I am struggling with the concept that Wiktionary is not a repository for quotations. If entries should show quotations - but most that I have seen do not - where are quotations from books stored? - RichardW57 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Correction: {{pi-From Sai Kam Mong 241desitam}} also had a line:
|p = 241
RichardW57 (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Quotations are entered in the source of the page itself. There is (almost?) never a case where a particular quotation from a source deserves its own template - in fact, I don't recall having ever seen such a thing. For example, you can see दिग्गज (diggaj), where the quotation and the citation of the quoted text is directly in the source of the page. If you feel that adding comments is necessary, you can do so (but, I don't think those comments are necessary because adding a translation is just good practice for non-English quotations).
The system you are describing sounds like a technical headache (e.g. why do we need a whole Lua module for a quotation being used on 4 pages?), and it also does not offer support for automatic transliteration. This also makes life difficult for future editors who would find this level of abstraction difficult to navigate, for example if they want to make a change to the quote's text. The generic templates {{quote}} and the family of {{quote-news}}, {{cite-book}}/{{quote-book}} already handle all of this in a consistent manner. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 01:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanAThe quotation at दिग्गज (diggaj) occurs only in that entry - unless it's typed in differently at other locations! (It shouldn't be, because it seems that cut and paste was an available option.)
The scheme I have in mind is:
Entry invokes quote-specific template, passing it a word identifier. I think the word identifier will have to be defined in the context of the quote, e.g. lexeme '01' or '12'.
Quote-specific template contains the marked up quote, optionally the correspondingly marked up transliteration, and the correspondingly marked up translation, and passes them to the book-specific module along with the page number and the word identifier. It might be possible to use a generic module.
The module uses the word identifier to embolden the word and strip out the word-tagging mark up. It then invokes the RQ template with the appropriate parameters.
So, if an editor sees a problem with the quoted text, he starts editing and sees a template. A lot of entries already look like a stream of template invocations. On opening the template up, he finds marked-up strings such as:
{1-desitaṃ} {2-deva}{3-devena} {4-}sabba}{5-papa}} {6-vināsanaṃ} {7-sabba}{8-loka}-{9-hitatthāya} {10-maṅgalaṃ} taṃ {11-bhaṇāmahe}
(I may have to tweak the opening tags to '-1{' to work properly with Lua pattern handling.) Minor edits are straightforward. If he thinks that devadeva is sufficiently idiomatic to deserve an entry, and we don't have a rule exempting it from script-specific evidence, he can then extend the tagging so the string includes {12-{2-deva}{3-devena}}} - Lua supports nesting punctuation. All the relevant strings would have to be tagged. (I trust the emboldening will survive automatic transliteration, so that manual transliteration can be optional.) If he concludes that I have transcribed a word wrong, then the correction is immediately available to all the entries that use the quotation. For example, it isn't always easy to tell 'na' and 'nā' apart in the Tai Tham script - the latter is sometimes just wider.
Submitted under an alias of RichardW57 - RichardW57m (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Automatic transliteration looks like something that would currently have to be bolted into the quote-specific template - {{quote-book}} doesn't support it, and that's what is invoked by the RQ template at the bottom, Template:RQ:pi:Sai Kam Mong. In AryanamanA's scheme, it would have to be invoked in the text of each entry! I presume one would want to be consistent on whether it was used on a quote. - RichardW57 (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to note. There are the quotation templates {{Q}} and {{quote}} which do support transcription, and {{quote}} can be placed after an {{quote-book}} etc. So far I even need to use {{quote}} because of bidirectionality problems ({{quote}} applies language-specific formatting). Aside from this modules invoke {{xlit}}. Fay Freak (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a feature request for {{quote-book}}. At the moment, I'm benefitting from the lack of language-specific formatting, as the formatting currently selects a Tai Tham font that can't handle consonant clusters with preposed vowels, won't ligate NAA round a subscript consonant, and illegally renders LETTER A plus dependent vowel the same as a separately coded independent vowel, all on top of making subscripts far too small. All I'm asking for at the moment is the rendering of Pali - it's not as though I'm asking the font to render Northern Thai! - RichardW57 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I could knock up a gash Tai Tham to Latin transliterator for Pali, and probably knock up a Pali transliterator for academic Thai script to Latin. I might even be able to get it to handle the demotic Thai script writing system for Pali. (I started looking at Pali at Wiktionary because converting consonant clusters with preposed vowels to the Thai script suffers from a lack of clear rules. I was hoping Pali had been sorted out.) - RichardW57 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@RichardW57: I really do not understand the problem. If you make an automatic transliteration module for Tai Tham script for Pali, all of the template changes and feature requests you have conveyed thus far will become unnecessary. {{quote-book}} should only be used to reference the work in a quotation, not to provide the actual quote. {{quote}} is for the actual quote. If you want to automate things more, just use {{Q}} and provide metadata for works in Pali at Module:Quotations/pi/data. You can use Module:Quotations/sa/data as a base. Massive infrastructure changes are not necessary to do the particular things you have requested. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA: As to the infrastructure, you (at least, not me!) should then edit the documentation for {{quote-book}} to deprecate its passage, translation, transliteration and brackets parameters so that people like @Sgconlaw will stop using them. He added those parameters to {{RQ:pi:Sai Kam Mong}}, which made it more useful for me, though I could switch to using {{quote}} for them.
Do you think I could use all the features of {{Q}}? I can't. If I simply rely on quoting book, page and line number, only people with access to a physical copy of the book can see the text. Actually, 'text' is slightly misleading. I am not referencing the *text* of the book; I am referencing the pictures of writings it contains. The text of the book written by the author is in English. Unfortunately, only someone with physical access to the book can verify that the quoted text actually exists and that I have copied it correctly. However, given the quotes, the number of people who can check the interpretation then rapidly increases; they can also check that my copying down has not yielded gibberish. I note that Wiktionary actually holds quotations from Plato, not just references to them.
I am working my quotations hard; I don't have a large Tai Tham Pali corpus. The mark-up is therefore usefully selecting the word to highlight, in the original, and this mark-up should survive transliteration. The same mark-up scheme also selects the corresponding bit of the translation, though with minor issues when two Pali words correspond to one English word. If a better or legally safer translation is found or devised, then it can be straightforwardly substituted. For an example of the mark up at work, see the quotation for the Tai Tham spelling of Pali vana at ᩅᨶ (vana).
I haven't found one; is there any Wiktionary standard for quoting scriptio continua texts? As I see it, one has to guess whether a line break is hyphenation, and inter-word break or a punctuation mark; spaces are the main punctuation mark in mainland SE Asian languages. The question may not matter so much for Pali texts with minor and major section marks. (These marks are a continuation of the Indian single and double danda.) - RichardW57 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding what {{Q}} can do. {{Q}} does let you add a quote. E.g. {{Q|pi|Author|Title|1|1|quote=पालि|trans=English|year=1 CE}} gets:
1 CE, Author, Title 1.1:
For some reason {{Q}} does not provide automatic or allow manual transliteration, but you can get that by using {{quote}} in conjunction with it:
If you add metadata to Module:Quotations/pi/data you can use other features in {{Q}} such as automatic adding of links to the text and author's page on Wikipedia as well as linking to the section of the actual document on Wikisource.
Your current markup scheme will require importing entire texts to Wiktionary (and that is not this site's purpose) and marking them up manually just to supply a couple of quotes for each section of the text. I think that level of abstraction is far beyond what is necessary, and current infrastructure and some copying and pasting gets us the same effect with far less effort. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you expect the book to appear on Wikisource within 50 years? It was written in 2004. Sai Kam Mong does not have the copyright on the text I'm quoting; someone probably has the copyright on the pictures of it.

{{Q}} won't help with the individual documents sampled in Sai Kam Mong's book.

My current markup scheme marks up what gets quoted; at present, that gets imported anyway - once in my way, and for each use in what you recommend. Remember, I can't cut and paste the quoted text; I have to type it in. I am saving effort on revising the text. If there's an error in it, I just have to change one copy. Likewise for the translation. In the short term, I'm probably saving effort by not automating the transliteration - especially if I'm expected to detect word boundaries! - RichardW57 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Module invocationsEdit

Please use a template and don't invoke modules directly in entries. DTLHS (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As requested, I've now created (and documented) a template to interface between the main space page and the module, namely Template:RQ:pi:Sai Kam Mong quote. I am about to start converting the module invocations to template invocations.
It would be good if this prohibition were documented somewhere. There is a similar prohibition, but as I read it it didn't cover what I was doing, so I minimised the number of templates and didn't create an interface template. - RichardW57 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS, I think I've completed the conversion, but how do I check? As the module still gets invoked for the page, it is still recorded as being invoked by the page. - RichardW57 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all I meant was don't use #invoke: directly. DTLHS (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS, Understood. Is there a way of checking that I've done the conversion, or do I just wait for individual complaints if I've missed one?
I don't understand your question. All I asked was that you not use {{#invoke... in the main namespace. DTLHS (talk)
I took the request as implying a request to remove the direct invocations I had already created, e.g. by routing them through a template instead.

Pali in the Lao ScriptEdit

How could the Lao script be added to the entries of the Pali language? Perhaps the script could be added before your proposed changes are implemented.

(Also, my computer has the required font for ordinary Lao letters, but not the Lao letters for Pali and Sanskrit.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Straightforwardly, though to do it right some research is required. It's conceivable that Octahedron80 has already done it. A first approximation is to clone the Thai. A lot of the coding has already been done by Octahedron80. The key locations where work is required are:
  • {{pi-sc}}: Choose the abbreviation if any for the Lao script; possibly always required the code, as for Brahmi.
  • Module pi-Latn-translit: Check the transliteration accords with the final encoding, and uncomment out the bits for Lao.
  • The language database to add Laoo to the scripts for Pali: That's needed at least for {{pi-alt}}.
  • Module pi-decl-noun: The fallback transliteration for declension may work for Lao, so we can use a data-free new module pi-decl/noun/Laoo. The special code for Laoo will need to be uncommented out.
  • Module pi-conj/verb: The special code for Thai, as a visual order script, will need to be cloned for Lao. (Recognising the -eti and -oti endings in Thai and Lao scripts is a bit fiddly.)

The research that is needed is into the encoding of clusters with prescript vowels - where does the vowel go? (Thai won't put the vowel further left than immediately before the rightmost obstruent or nasal, and applies the muta cum liquida rule.) Thai vacillates with the murmured resonants - some put the vowel before the whole clusters, others in the middle. I therefore present both for the 2p and 3p of the present middle. The inflectional override mechanisms will handle the rare interactions with the stem, e.g. the masculine singular of a-stems and the regular optative of verbs. Template {{pi-alt}} allows overrides, and I have been using them for the Tai Tham script - pāpa (evil) is evil enough to need it, and I'm going to have to check why the alternatives seem to have gone missing. RichardW57m (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

About font, Pali & Sanskrit letters are recently introduced in Unicode 12.0. There is no suitable font at the moment of course. We should wait for some time. (We shouldn't make it yet if NO ONE can see.)
About orthography, just apply same rules as Thai script since they are both visual input (not logic input). FYI: Lao computer system is adopted from Thai, as seen in her encoding table. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
PS. I think "L" could not be used for Tai Tham also because people will assume to Lao first.
And what are the rules for Pali in Thai script?
The proposal for the Pali letters claimed there was already a font in wide use, and that the proposal used the same encoding. However, I couldn’t find such a font when I looked for it. RichardW57 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You already see the rules how Thai script works on Pali; it is very straight method. You know that Thai-written Pali and Pali-derived Thai have a bit different spellings. (They are not the same language indeed.) Lao-written Pali will follow Thai-written Pali on matching letters by default.
The added letters are used in press printing that I have seen either. But no computer font is not yet created to support it AFAIK because they are just new. ("Font" in my sense only means to computer font.)--Octahedron80 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I've had allegedly Unicode-encoded computer fonts supporting these letters for at least 10 years, though I haven't checked which fonts, if any, have them all in the now official place. As a test, I entered the phonetically unusual Pali word nigrodha. Once I'd fixed the bug in your enabling of transliteration to Lao script, I could read both the offered Thai and Lao script forms. The Thai comes out as นิคฺโรธ and the Lao as ນິຄ຺ໂຣຘ. The last Lao letter renders correctly, and I haven't deliberately installed any Lao fonts recently. (I may have had a routine font update, though.) However, the Thai transliteration comes out wrong - the majority spelling on the Internet is นิโคฺรธ, by a ratio of 1200:39. Does a mis(?)spelling at the 3% level merit an entry? @Lo Ximiendo, Octahedron80.
Now, the Thai rules are fiddly, and for the rare words with obstruent+semivowel, manually coercing the output of {{pi-alt}} isn't too much of a problem. Most 'words' with that sort of cluster are sandhi combinations, and probably don't merit an entry. ([i]Tatreva[/i] might be an exception.) However, it is possible that the Lao rules are deliberately different to the Thai rules. If they are simple, it would be good to implement them. RichardW57 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I must say that นิคฺโรธ is already correct for Pali. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Why? Are both correct? If only one is correct, where are the rules? Thy might be lurking on the website of what used to be the Royal Institute. นิโคฺรธ merits some sort of entry. RichardW57 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Bindu (virama) usually denotes final consonant of prior syllable so it must be put immediately after its syllable. On rare cases, consonant over bindu is pronounced again on next syllable, such as ตสฺมา (sounds like ตสฺ-สฺมา) ชิตฺวา (sounds like ชิตฺ-ตฺวา). We must put คฺ after นิ even นิคฺโรธ reads นิคฺ-โคฺร-ธ. I suggest to put both นิคฺโรธ and นิโคฺรธ due to popularity. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There are some publications using Yamakkan symbol (U+0E4E) to clarify these cases: ตส๎มา, ชิต๎วา, นิค๎โรธ/นิโค๎รธ. But this method is not popular because (1) it looks similar to killer mark (U+0E4C) and (2) it is not on keyboard. Todays we just use bindu every where. --Octahedron80 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
(1) The original system was to use yamakkan in conjunction with wanchakan (U+0E4C); they were supposed to have been completely replaced by phinthu. (2) Linux keyboards tend to have yamakkan where Windows has the reportedly obsolete baht symbol (฿). RichardW57m (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If yamakkan is still in use, then I suppose Wiktionary ought to cope with it. But Pali in Thai script seems under-represented - the only explicit verb I could find was just a verb form. That's annoying considering the fiddly details that had to be addressed to display the conjugation of the present tense system. RichardW57m (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The Lao and Thai scripts now each have one verb, and its present system conjugation (which is regular, given the 'special base') is now shown. RichardW57 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Octahedron80, Atitarev: It's also used for the initial consonant of syllables starting with a consonant cluster, most notably vy-/by- but also br- and tv- at the start of a word. It occurred to me that the statistics might be biased by phonetic respelling for the Thai word. I therefore looked for the accusative, which is much rarer, but free of that corruption. I got 112 v. 3 for นิโคฺรธํ v. นิคฺโรธํ. What saves the second form is not necessarily its 3% of occurrences, but rather the conviction of people like you that it is the right form. RichardW57m (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI: On Thai Wiktionary, we use Thai script as substrate for pi-alt rather than Latin, which is easier for us. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I just found Lao Pali Alpha here [1]. It supports full new letters. But it is a little big; I must reduce font size in my CSS. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Please remember to link all important words in your definitions. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Separation of meaningsEdit

Regarding my and your latest changes on ក្សេត្រ. We went from 2 bullets with 2 semicolons each, to 2 bullets with 2 commas each (my change), to 4 bullets (your change). On the second meaning at least ( "area, region"), why would you like make it 2 distinct meanings, when they are not? The two translations are there to "paint" a broader idea of the term, not to exactly separate meanings. Headley gives even more equivalents: place, space, area, region, territory. And we could add more: zone, sector, land... Would we need to make one bullet for each of the synonyms of English? In reality, this word has just one meaning, with one restrictive sub-meaning (farmland). Sitaron (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus, I can see that you did like I did on that word सम्पद् cited in the above thread, why would you do any differently for ក្សេត្រ? To clarify, the semicolons were "added in error" by a previous editor. It does not mean that he meant to separate the meanings in the first place, it seems he always write this way, and I wanted to fix that. Sitaron (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
(Written in parallel with the above.) OK, I see @Atitarev promoted Headley's commas to semicolons, which is a change of meaning. I've reverted the division to your organisation, which accords with Headley 1977, at least, as presented by the SEALang dictionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Template pi-categoryTOCEdit

Hi @RichardW57, Please you see this Mon Pali consonant link photo thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? I'm a happily married man. :-) More seriously:
  • I suspect that the previous page of the book will tell you that is the first letter of the alphabet. The indexes are currently decluttered by only listing the first vowel letter.
  • We haven't overridden the sorting order enough to get to first position. I think it is more helpful if the list of initial letters is in the sort order we get.
  • Contrariwise, I am hoping that @Octahedron80 will soon put amongst the palatals, rather than after the vowel letters, which is where it currently goes. If no-one does, it will have to be moved to the end in these tables of contents. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Niggahita and ṅa cannot start words, so they don't belong in the letter lists.
  • The Mymr script is the script of the Burmese Empire. If you want the name used changed, get consensus on the Beer Parlour.

--RichardW57 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @咽頭べさ --RichardW57m (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57,Is Template pi-categoryTOC related to Pali language? if Template pi-categoryTOC is right about Pali, why don't you use Pali consonant? if Template pi-categoryTOC is true about Pali consonant, do not confuse it with Burmese consonant. You still need to learn what a Burmese consonant, Pali consonant, Mon consonant is, if you are a true scholar, you need to be able to distinguish right from wrong about the historical lies of the Burmese people. There is no real Burmese consonant, the Burmese people use their Mon Pali consonant. You will be accused of trying to cover up Mon history because you call the letters in Burma the Burmese alphabet. I strongly condemn you for calling the letters in Burma the Burmese alphabet not thank I'm very angry about this issue.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@咽頭べさ You guys just stole a load of Indian letters. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@RichardW57,Do you have strong evidence for this accusation? if you have any solid evidence, show it to me. We Mon people did not steal Indian letters, We Mon people officially borrowed Indian letters from King Ashoka, there is strong evidence that we Mon people officially borrowed Indian letters from King Ashoka. You can find evidence at ancient pagodas in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Indian that we Mon people officially borrowed Indian letters from King Ashoka. Please stop your evil conspiracy theories, you need to understand that you can lie to people who do not know much about history, you can not lie to me. I want to have a peaceful conversation with you, so you need to get rid of your historical lies, if you do not know the truth about history, do it yourself learn.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

pi-template module errorsEdit

Of the 22 module errors currently in CAT:E, three of them are due to documentation sections you created that appear to be deliberately designed to throw module errors.

Please tell me I'm mistaken and that you didn't do this on purpose. CAT:E is necessary for spotting problems in modules, and should be kept as clear as possible- no error should go unfixed for more than a few days. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't intend to add them to the category - but I wanted an analogue to the input checking that one gets with {{inh|en|pi|DOSA}}. Unfortunately, that can't be demonstrated by example either. Or is there a solution to that conundrum? I now just return the text from {{pi-link}} and friends as a bold red error message. Template {{error}} isn't quite as useful as I thought. Bold red text isn't quite as useful as raising an error, but it will usually do the job. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz --RichardW57 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Kharosthi translit, S with caudaEdit

Hello! Would you please take a look at the failed test case? Module:Khar-translit/testcases The Kharosthi-S-with-cauda doesn't produce Roman s-with-undermacron, so the result looks indistinguishable from ś (the cavarga fricative). --Frigoris (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris: 'Twas a silly mistake, now corrected. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation ruleEdit

Hello. Should Pali proper nouns (in Latin) be spelt with an uppercase or a lowercase? What’s the rule of thumb, if any? Thank you. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In the Latin script, they may be spelt either way. Pali Text Society publications, at least traditionally, use upper case. In Roman transliteration, as done on Wiktionary, they are in lower case, and that rule also seems to be followed by the chanting books from our local temple. (The chanting books don't cater for the Thai and Sinhalese parts of the local laity.) In the English translations, they capitalise the titles of the Buddha (and also 'Dhamma' and 'Saṅgha'), but not in the Pali. The chanting books do use capitals for the starts of lines in poetry and for sentences in Pali prose, and that differs from our (or at least my) transliteration practice. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I am aware that Wiktionary romanisation is all lowercase, so I guess this should also apply to the Latin script forms. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The Roman script form has a degree of autonomy. For example, the PTS spelling exploits the fact that there is no phonemic contrast between /n/ and /ŋ/, and writes <n> for both. The writing of apostrophes is also a bit more than strict transliteration would allow. And, of course, capitalisation rules assert themselves. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to lie တလိုင်းEdit

@RichardW57, Are you a real human being? if you are a human being, respect the true history of a minority, do not destroy the true history of a minority group that you have joined with extremist Burmese people. There are many books published by the Burmese people to oppress the Mon people, if you believe books that have been propagated by extremist Burmese people, you are an ignorant human being, can I honestly ask you? how long have you believed the propaganda lies of extremist Burmese people?, have you learned for yourself how extremist Burmese people have persecuted minorities? Have you ever seen the suffering of minorities fleeing into the jungle due to the killing of extremist Burmese people? Extremist Burmese people use a variety of methods to harass minorities, did you know that? can you show evidence of Ta Laingတလိုင်း terminology? as evidence of Ta Laing terminology, do not present with propaganda books by Burmese people extremist groups.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
If Burmese extremist groups refer to Mons as တလိုင်း, then 'Mon' is a Burmese meaning of the word. If you think that's bad, consider 'Taliang' in English. It chiefly refers to a Bahnaric group, but is also used as a variant of 'Talaing', the normal English form of the word. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@咽頭べさ: Hi. Please be polite to your fellow editors. If an admin sees this discussion page, you risk getting temporarily blocked. The utmost you can do for the Mon Nation here on Wiktionary is to create Mon entries which would help preserve the language. This is not the platform to keep complaining about atrocities committed against your nation. Also, we host entries for all words of all languages, including ethnic slurs, so there’s nothing wrong about such entries as this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Inqilābī:, Isn't Wiktionary a dictionary? Why did the English Wiktionary allow the false term Ta Laingတလိုင်း to be spelled Mon? why is it allowed in the English Wiktionary without being able to show us solid evidence that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon? is the English Wiktionary meant to attack an ethnic group? continuing to use the term Ta Laing as Mon in the English Wiktionary is an insult to the Mon people. You think I'm a rude person, who is the real rude person? have you checked? they are the real rude persons, I am not the real rude person. (for example, let me ask you a question, how would you feel if someone wrote something insulting about something you loved in this English Wiktionary? Please answer the example question I just asked), I also love Mon people very much, you also need to be sympathetic to how I feel about writing insulting articles about Mon people in the English Wiktionary. if you do not believe what I say, go and ask Mon people on Mon Wikipedia Facebook group and they will tell you that Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon. if you want the truth, authenticity Mon Wikipedia to discuss, I do not need threats from you, I need justice from you, can you do me justice?.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Wiktionary is an uncensored, descriptive dictionary. That means we include anything that has been used by the speakers of a given language. Are you saying that Burmese speakers have never said such things? Are you proclaiming their innocence? That is the only way we could remove that definition. You want justice? Wiktionary can't help you. All we can do is document the truth- about language and its usage, not about real life.
As for your "hypothetical": there are admins here who have protected entries for slurs used as justification for the mass murder of millions of their own people. Many of the terms here target people who are friends and colleagues of mine- people whom I respect and admire, who are a credit not just to their own race, but to the human race. No one should ever say such things- but people do, and have throughout history. If we are to tell the truth, we have to document this. The best we can do is label such things as ethnic slurs, and maybe add usage notes explaining things from a neutral point of view. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@咽頭べさ: {{w:Mon#Etymology|Wikipedia}} says:--RichardW57 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
In 1930 and 1947, Mon ethnic leaders, who considered the term "Talaing" to be pejorative, petitioned against the use of the term.
Is this story true? Did the petition relate purely to the use in the English language?
What do you mean by the expression "Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon"? What is "Ta Laing"? If you want to quote the Burmese word with a transliteration, just write {{m|my|တလိုင်း}}. "Talaing" is an English word, now rarely used. No-one has claimed that that the words "Talaing" or "တလိုင်း" are Mon. As for insulting words, @Inqilābī has to put up with English Paki and Thai แขก (kɛ̀ɛk). --RichardW57 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I've found a contrast between the 'Talaing' and 'Mon' at https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/55ec8160-d552-322d-9f1b-940f139b6fc5 - "From Burma work developed across the border in Siam [Thailand], where another group, the Mons, spoke the same language as the Talaings."--RichardW57 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@RichardW57:, Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Tai Laingတႆးလႅင် and has nothing to do with Mon, accusing Ta Laing of being Mon is an insult to the Mon people. The term Ta Laing is the pronunciation of the Tai Laing people, if you want to know the true source of Ta Laing vocabulary, you have to talk to the Tai Laing people and listen carefully to their pronunciation, (for example the Burmese people call the term (စပုင်ကၠုၚ်ɕiəʔpɜŋklɜŋ) is (ချီးပိန်ကလိန်Chi thin pilot) satire is still used today, there are many words that Burmese people make fun of Mon people. Vocabulary that Burmese people make fun of Mon people many of them are written in their dictionaries, if you do not know the true history of Burma, you will not learn this true history, if you want to learn about the history of this Ta Laing incident, you can visit Burma in person. You learn not to visit Burma, as long as you read their propaganda book online, you will not know the true history of Ta Laingတလိုင်း, you need to learn 4 languages to know the exact source of Ta Laing vocabulary.
  1. Burmese language learning
  2. Mon language learning
  3. Shan language learning
  4. Tai Laing language learning

Once you become proficient in these four languages, you will find the source of Ta Laingတလိုင်း vocabulary, I spent six years learning the language to find the source of this Ta Laingတလိုင်း vocabulary, there is a lot of true history hidden in Burmese people in Burma. I can speak Shan, Mon, Burmese, Tai Laing, Thai, Japan, Chinese, Mon korean, Mon Thai, Korean, Rakhine, Tavoyan, Karen, Jingpho without difficulty. Travel on your own to find out if what I say is true or not, travel around the country and learn a language, it is an insult to the Mon people to accuse you of being Mon without knowing the exact source of the Ta Laing term.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@咽頭べさ: Perhaps I would understand you better if you wrote in Thai.
  1. What do you mean by 'Ta Laing vocabulary'? Do you mean one of the following:
    1. The English word 'Talaing'?
    2. The Burmese word 'တလိုင်း'?
    3. The words of the Tai Laing language?
  2. In the sense of တလိုင်း meaning 'Tai Laing' in Burmese, you link to a video Tai Laing biography YouTube video for the pronunciation. At what time does this word occur? Is it around 8:03 (i.e. 483 seconds)? Can you make the lyrics available? The word is oddly separated from the list of names of Shan groups starting with တႆး (táy). Also, is not the song in Shan? It doesn't sound like Burmese to me. Are you trying to use it as evidence for the meaning of a related Shan word? --RichardW57 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@RichardW57:The term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is derived from the term Tai Longတႆးလုင်, the term Tai Longတႆးလုင် was coined in Burmese as Ta Laingတလိုင်း, and as time went on, few people knew that the term Ta Laing was derived from the word Tai Longတလိုင်း, during the Shan Revolution of 1740, the Hanthawaddy Mon people joined the Shan people in revolting against the Inn Wa King, so the Inn Wa Kings called the Hanthawaddy forces Hanthawaddy Ta Laingဟံသာဝသီတလိုင်း. Shan rebel; Both Mon tribes were collectively called Ta Laing. The term Ta Laingတလိုင်း means "Hateful crude Races, Invaders" by the Burmese people, during the war with King Inn Wa during the reign of Mon King Binnya Dala, the Burmese called the Mon army the Ta Laing Army, the Mons also called the Burmese army (အရည်းကြီး A Ye Gyi) troops, the term (Ta Laingတလိုင်း) and (အရည်းကြီး A Ye Gyi) is a hateful term intended to incite hatred during war. Ta Laingတလိုင်း has been recorded in historical records as Mon since 1753 with the aim of oppressing the Mon people from Burmese people. During World War II, the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း was abbreviated to imperialist falses to refer to English people and Japanese people as resentment hatred invasion imperialisms as Aung Zeya used the term to humbly refer to the Mon people during the war, Ta Laingတလိုင်း is a term used by the Burmese people to refer to an enemy during a war. Isn't Wiktionary a dictionary? why use hate speech during the war? you are accusing Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon, who paid you to do it? do you know how rude it is to just accuse Ta Laing of being Mon? do you know how upset I am that your Ta Laingတလိုင်း is accusing you of being Mon?.

See the following languages

  1. Shan language=တႆးလႅင်
  2. Tai Laing language=တႆးလုင် or တႆးလူင်
  3. Burmese language=တလိုင်း or တိုင်းလိုင်း 👈Shan pronunciation, but Burmese alphabet Shan pronunciation

Please stop making accusations that hurt your Mon people, naming Mon people requires permission from Mon people, the Mon people can never allow the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း to be called Mon, this is because Mon people are not allowed to use the name Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon, if you are using Ta Laing as Mon, it is a terrorist attack, in order to confirm your lies, do not threaten to block my account, to accuse your Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon is a violation of Wiktionary rules, please respect the history of Mon people, stop destroying your Mon history. The ancient name of the Mon people was Ramanรามัญရာမန်, the (Ramanรามัญရာမန်) is the original name of the Mon people, the name Ramanรามัญရာမန် is still used in Thailand today, in 1986, British English called the Mon people it Ta Laing, the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း in British English was not accepted by the Mon people because it was hate speech. In 1987, for the new name Ramanรามัญရာမန်, the Pali pronunciation of the word Ramanyaရာမည is still used today, the name Monမန် is derived from the Pali word Ramanyaရာမည. The term Ta Laingတလိုင်း you are writing has nothing to do with the Monမန် name, continuing to accuse Ta Laing of being Mon is a lie.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

When you write 'Ta Laing', do you mean 'Talaing'? To English speakers, these are not automatically the same word. We have not had a clear statement that you find the English word 'Talaing' offensive. I do not perceive anything deliberately offensive about it.
Wiktionary records usage, so we do record that 'frog' is a term used for Frenchmen. We also record Boche and Hun as meaning 'German'; these meanings are associated with being at war with Germany.
We might be persuaded to heed WMF policy on the translations we give. We will not accept limitations on what words are recorded.
Your etymology for the word above, as being transferred from the word for 'Shan', makes a lot of sense. We are reported to have done with the term frog, originally using it for the Dutch, whom we fought in the 17th century, before accepting a Dutchman as king and then fighting the French. 'Tai Long' and 'Tai Laing' are very different words. 'Tai Long' generally means Shans in general, w:Tai Laing refers to a specific group chiefly associated with Kachin State. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Do you have any good reason for using the word 'Talaing' as the translation of တလိုင်း (ta.luing:). I sense that that word may also be offensive to Mon ears. If so, that should probably be recorded in usage notes rather than the entry. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

As a disinterested outsider to the discussion, here are my reasons (good or not): (1) [2] says Talaing is "Borrowed from Burmese တလိုင်း (ta.luing:)." (with two citations) and (2) [3] says Talaing is an English-language descendant of တလိုင်း. You all do what you want; if you feel that's an insufficient basis for something I did, change it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@RichardW57:I wrote the တိုင်းလိုင်း,တလိုင်း,တႆးလုင်,တႆးလႅင် word Ta Laing in English according to the Burmese Pronunciation, I have not yet found a definitive answer to how the English spelling of the word တိုင်းလိုင်း,တလိုင်း,တႆးလုင်,တႆးလႅင် ​is spelled, so I wrote it in English according to the Burmese Pronunciation, but this is because Mon, Thai, Shan, English, Burmese spelling are not the same, consider the following spelling pattern.
  1. Thai spelling style=(Mon= ဘာသာသေံဇၞော်) (Thai= ภาษาไทยใหญ่) (Shan= ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ) (English= Thai Yai Language) definition=Shan Language
  2. Burmese spelling style=(Burmese= ရှမ်းဘာသာစကား or သျှာမ်ဘာသာစကား👈Old name) (English=Shan language) definition=ရှမ်းShan is a Burmese spelling pronunciation.
  3. Shan spelling style=(Shan=ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ or ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး) (Thai=ภาษาไท) (English=Tai language or Tai Yai Language) definition=Shan Language.

By studying the spelling I have just written, you will find that spelling is different in all languages. No one has been able to provide specific evidence as to what language the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is derived from, currently, the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is used by the Burmese people as a weapon of war. When Burmese people meet someone they hate, they start attacking with the word Ta Laingတလိုင်း. Mon people and Burmese people In the border areas of Mon State, the Burmese people, who are often at war, started attacking Mons as Ta Laingတလိုင်း, I have told you many times that Ta Laing တလိုင်း is not Mon. I suggest that you find out for yourself how accurate my statement that Ta Laingတလိုင်း it is not Mon. Since Wiktionary is a dictionary website, it is totally rude to use accusatory words that hurt a particular ethnic group on Wiktionary. (for example if we could only accuse English of being dog people, would English people like it?), since Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon, we have no reason to accept the accusation of Mon. You may think my remarks are rude, but the very rude acts are just your Ta Laingတလိုင်း allegations. Hate speech that harms an ethnic group should never be used as a dictionary on Wiktionary, this is terrorism if you use hate speech that harms an ethnic group in Wiktionary. My actions are to protect Mon history and Mon people, as a Mon people, I have a great responsibility to protect Mon history and Mon people, by Wiktionary I do not accept any insults to Mon people, now accusing your Ta Laingတလိုင်း term of being Mon is an insult to the Mon people. I do not believe in online propaganda books like you, I think you believe in the propaganda books of the Burmese people, but if you do not believe in Burmese propaganda books, there is no reason to accuse Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon. Burmese people have a lot of hate speech that they have invented to attack one of their ethnic groups. Here are some of the most rude hate words that Burmese people have ever invented.👇

  1. တလိုင်း Ta Laing (This Ta Laing term is a hate word used to attack Karen, Mon, Shan). Definition=The term Ta Laing means barbaric the rude.
  2. ဂျပန်ဂတုံ Japan Ga Ton (The Japan Ga Ton and

term is used to refer to insulting hate speech that mainly attacks Japanese people). Definition=(The term Japan Ga Ton means rapists. History=The Burmese people called the Japanese people is Japan Ga To because Japanese soldiers arrested and raped women during World War II). There are many more hate words that Burmese people have invented, Wiktionary is a dictionary, so hate speech should not be used on Wiktionary, Admins in charge of Wiktionary should never be allowed to write hate speech that harms the dignity of a particular ethnic group. I hope you understand what I have just explained.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)