User talk:Pulimaiyi/2022

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

-డు

Could you check the etymology at this Telugu entry? It was added by an IP. We lack a language code for Old Telugu. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: That etymology is legit. As for Old Telugu, I second having a code for it. I'll contact the concerned editors of the area and add a code once I get the go-ahead. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanskrit adjectival templates

Hello, please advise me on how to manually set a form in Sanskrit adjective templates (for example, to set the neuter of itara as itarad in Classical Sanskrit and itaram in Vedic). Thank you, Prahlad balaji (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: you can use parameters like |nom_s=इतरम्, इतरत्, |acc_s=इतरम्, इतरत् etc. in the declension template {{sa-decl-noun-n}}. In {{sa-decl-adj-mfn}} use |n_nom_s=इतरम्, इतरत् and likewise. —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Svartava for the help! I would like to say that "itarad" is Classical and "itaram" is Vedic; how do I specify one as Vedic and the other as Classical? Thanks, Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: I added the second (Vedic) form too. I don't know how to label them though in the new automated template. At गो (go), for instance, declension is entered manually because it is irregular and there I have labeled the Vedic forms with {{q|Vedic}}. I think what you can do is add |note= at the end of the template and specify that इतरद् is Classical and इतरम् is Vedic. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the |note= parameter doesn't work, but I did add a note at the bottom of the template manually. Thanks for the help everyone! Prahlad balaji (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Yes, I realized now, that's because it only works for nouns apparently. The current solution is good enough. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi, sorry to bother you. But I just came across the Sanskrit page at दर्शयति, which says that the verb is causative and of class 4. However, in my experience, causative verbs are usually class 10. Since you seem to be more well-versed in Sanskrit than I am, can you please double-check it? Thank you, Prahlad balaji (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Hi, it must have been a mistake. Causatives are indeed always class 10. Thanks for catching the error! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

All done!

All the tagging for now is done. Thank you so much for the deletions. Thanks to your help and that of other admins, we've deleted 1000+ wrong Latin inflections in the past few days. Already I picked up a confused person on Stack Exchange thinking one of our nonsensical forms was real, so I am sure this exercise will prevent confusion among the broader Latin community. This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: No problem, glad to be of help! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 10:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Donor language of post-OIA terms in Dravidian languages

Thanks for creating the entry for Old Kannada ನಿಬ್ಬರ (nibbara). Perhaps it is comparable to Telugu నిబ్బరము (nibbaramu) and Tamil நிப்பரம் (nipparam). Since I have no competency in Kannada, I would unfortunately have to ask on a case-by-case basis whether or not a term in {{R:kn:Kittel}} is representative of modern Kannada.

When creating the following entries for Old Marathi, I assumed that (Old) Kannada and the other Dravidian languages borrowed from Old Marathi rather than the corresponding Prakrit terms.

𑘎𑘳𑘽𑘥𑘰𑘨 / कुंभार (kuṃbhāra) → ಕುಂಬಾರ (kumbāra)

𑘨𑘰𑘜𑘲 / राणी (rāṇī) → ರಾಣಿ (rāṇi)

𑘟𑘰𑘛𑘲 / दाढी (dāḍhī) → ದಾಡಿ (dāḍi)

The reasoning behind this assumption is that Old Kannada would have been contemporaneous and in direct contact with Old Marathi during the early NIA period rather than with Prakrit, which would have been a dead language by c. 500 CE, from the MIA period. Also, the phonology of the borrowing from Old Marathi to Old Kannada seems plausible for those these three examples. Old Kannada ನಿಬ್ಬರ (nibbara) has a geminate /b/ that is not present in Old Marathi 𑘡𑘲𑘤𑘨 / निभर (nibhara), but Ahirani निब्बर (nibbar) does have a geminate /b/. Although other Dravidian languages were more distant from Old Marathi, Old Marathi would still have been most prominent Southern Indo-Aryan language at the time of borrowing. Should this practice of Old Marathi being the donor language continue, or should classical Prakrit be considered the donor language instead?

In any case, if an early NIA language such as Old Marathi is not suitable as the post-OIA donor language, and the borrowing occurred from and MIA language, what would determine the borrowing is from Pali or Prakrit such as for diff? (the difference between Category:Kannada terms derived from Pali and Category:Kannada terms derived from Prakrit)

In many cases Pali and Prakrit are identical, so there seems to be no way to distinguish from which of the two languages a borrowing is derived from. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I think the donor language should be decided on a case by case basis. Where the Old Marathi term is identical to the Prakrit term and the Kannada borrowing, we can give Old Marathi as the source. But in many other cases, Kannada retains geminated consonants, etc which make a strong case for the source to be Middle IA, and not New IA. Pali is preferred over Prakrit because of instances like ಬಣ್ಣ (baṇṇa, “colour”) whereas Prakrit retains the initial [v]. But it is not as straightforward as one might think because Kannada anyway turns [v] to [b] even in inherited words (c.f. Dravidian *weruku -> Kannada bekku (“cat”)). Other instances, like (Old) Kannada ಕೊಟ್ಟ-ಗೆ (koṭṭa-ge) had to be borrowed even earlier; early enough for the voiced velar to be de-voiced. I therefore suppose the borrowing to have happened before the Tamil-Kannada split when voiced and unvoiced stops were allophones. The source language for a term borrowed so early on has to be Middle Indo-Aryan. Kannada ಸಗಣಿ (sagaṇi, “cowdung”) is another interesting case and I cannot do it justice on this page; I intend to start a separate discussion about it on its talk page. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Descendants Trees

Regarding the descendants tree style at 𑀭𑀓𑁆𑀔𑀲: I used to show languages that are related to one another under empty languages such as Gurjar Apabhramsa & Sauraseni Apabhramsa at Special:PermanentLink/64087715, which was changed by Svartava at diff. Inqilābī pointed out at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2021-03/Merging_Prakrit_lects_into_one#Descendants_2:

d’you not think [[Reconstruction:Ashokan Prakrit/𑀕𑀭𑁆𑀳]] is being too overwrought...I can understand you want to show the family tree well— in that case perhaps listing the Apabhramsas should suffice?

However, I stopped listing empty languages after Svartava said the following at Talk:हसति#Braj:

I really think we don't need to show empty "sauraseni apabhramsa" and "old hindi" "gurjar apabhramsa" etc unless a term is attested. I prefer keeping descendants section short and clean.

Although organising by geographic zones and empty languages may be worthwhile attempts at showing the progression from MIA to NIA in the absence of data, the issue that Svartava points out still holds true in both organisation schemes. For most readers, it may look like unnecessary clutter. So, is reducing clutter or attempting to show the progression from MIA to NIA a higher priority? Whichever style is decided upon, making sure that all descendants conform that style will be a difficult task that is perhaps suitable for a bot. Kutchkutch (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: I found this practice of arranging the Indo-Aryan descendants alphabetically quite arbitrary as it does not take into account the subfamilies within Indo-Aryan. So I tried to introduce a system where these subfamilies will be shown (the subfamilies will ultimately be ordered alphabetically). My intention was not to sort them geographically as such, but by their subfamilies. If Konkani and Bengali were from the same subfamily, I'd put the two together, regardless of the fact that they are from different geographic zones. In a PIE entry, for instance, we don’t write Ancient Greek, followed by Avestan, followed by Latin, followed by Sanskrit; these languages are first organised into Hellenic, Italic and Aryan and then accordingly ordered alphabetically. The same system is also followed in well written out Proto-Iranian entries where the descendants are grouped into Eastern Iranian, Western Iranian and so on.

Until recently, it was common to use language families and ancestor languages interchangeably; take, for instance, the style of formatting you mentioned where all languages descended from Gurjar Apabhransha would be grouped under “Gurjar Apabhransha” even if the Gurjar Apabhransha term is not given and has been nulled out. Thus “Gurjar Apabhransha” served both as an ancestor language and as a group of languages that descend from it. Another example is how until recently {{desc|iir-pro|*putrás}} would yield Indo-Iranian: *putrás, thus confounding Indo-Iranian the branch with Proto-Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of all the languages inside this branch. This practice has been scrapped as of late and {{desc|iir-pro|*putrás}} now gives Proto-Indo-Iranian: *putrás. I also am in agreement that empty levels for languages should not be created when the term in that language do not exist; if they are created, then at least they should not be nulled out. If it reads Gurjar Apabhransha: [Term?], it’ll show that a term is wanting whereas if an empty level if created for Gurjar Apabhransha, it creates the illusion that a group exists by the name of Gurjar Apabhransha.

On the basis that the same practice is followed for descendant trees in other entries, I am partial towards showing the subfamilies within Indo-Aryan in the descendant sections; for now, at least in entries where there are descendants from the whole family. Other entries with a few descendants can obviously wait. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Declension Resources

Hello,

I would be interested to know, where do you get your declension from on words such as शकृत् (śakṛt)? I'm asking this because I am also interested in expanding and improving upon Sanskrit inflections.

Thanks, Prahlad balaji (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Monier Williams mentions it whenever any declension is irregular. In the case of शकृत् (śakṛt), the term was attested a handful of times in Vedic and I looked them all up and filled in only those inflections which were attested. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sanskrit module

Hi,

I am currently working on a module for Sanskrit conjugation which can be seen here. However, the problem is that the sa-translit module does not seem to work with it, while most others seem to (although they don't transliterate Sanskrit text). Could you please give some recommendations or fixes for the issue? Thanks. Prahlad balaji.test (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji.test: Lua is not my strong suit. The situation is indeed very curious and I will be looking into it to try figuring it out but don't expect anything soon. You might want to seek out someone who knows Lua. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 08:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the response. I have also asked AryamanA who hopefully knows Lua better. Hopefully the situation will be sorted out soon. Prahlad balaji.test (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I figured it out - I just had to use frame:expandTemplate. Thanks for the help. Prahlad balaji.test (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Old {{desc|LANG|TERM}} in descendants trees

Should the etymology-only codes for Old Awadhi awa-old and Old Braj bra-old be used, and should etymology-only codes be created for 'Old Maithili' and 'Old Marwari', so that they can be handled automatically? At WT:Languages#Lects_which_appear_only_in_etymology_sections it says:

Some lects (dialects, chronolects and topolects) are referred to in etymology sections without having entries. These languages are given certain exceptional codes which generally not do fit the pattern described above. These languages and their codes are stored in Module:etymology languages/data and described in Wiktionary:Dialects.

Perhaps using etymological-only codes would also facilitate searching for all instances of them if any important actions about them need to be performed in the future. Although what 'Old Maithili' and 'Old Marwari' are is not certain, 'Old Awadhi' and 'Old Braj' seem to be a bit more certain. However, there are still several confusing aspects of using any of these languages in descendants trees such as 'Old Braj' possibly being a descendant of Old Hindi, which is one of the reasons why I have generally avoided mentioning them. Kutchkutch (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Greetings! The only reason I have been using Old {{desc|awa|TERM}} is that I did not know awa-old existed. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. I agree that it can be productive to have a code for Old Maithili too. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 07:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If the fringe theory that ‘Old Maithili is the same as Old Bengali’ is dismissed, then it seems safe to create an etymological code for an earlier stage of Maithili. However, I haven’t been able to find the term payān outside of CDIAL. Since Tirhuta/Mithilakshar was the original Maithili script, it may be helpful to include that script in descendants trees alongside Devanagari.

Old Marwari is currently used at 𑀭𑀸𑀬 and 𑀲𑀼𑀢𑁆𑀢. A document used by CDIAL for Old Marwari claims that Old Marwari is somewhat different from Old Gujarati. Since Marwari is currently a descendant of Old Gujarati, perhaps a temporary solution would be to make Old Marwari a lect of Old Gujarati. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comment

Have replied on my talk page. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)