Talk:Karnataka Konkani

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karnataka Konkani redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Languages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles

India: Karnataka

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Karnataka.

Merging proposal

Imperium and Nijgoykar, common sense dictates that there needn't be two separate articles on the same subject. It's unnecessary and only serves to create confusion in the mind of the novice reader. I understand that Imperium created a separate article as he was frustrated at his edit wars with Nijgoykar. But that's no excuse at all. I trust that he is quite familiar with the rules by now, and won't repeat it in the future. As such, i propose that this article be merged with the Kanara (Canara) Konkani article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, AshLin (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ! I have no problem with that at all ! I have just written article for others and not for myself! I do not mind merging the two articles at all.I actually wanted to name this artcile as Kanara Konkani.But there are Konkani speakers in other parts of Karnataka too.Hubli,Dharwad,Hospete,Gadag so I didn't choose that name. Nijgoykar (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once we have consensus for the merger, the correct name can be debated also. AshLin (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if anyone edits my articles but none of his sources and references were up to the mark and sound like original research.And he gets personal too! Nijgoykar (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

way to go User Joyson!! I'm all for it. Imperium^Caelestis 11:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool then! I take it that the consensus is in favor of a merge. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Nijgoykar has my word that I shall refrain from using words which might be construed as getting personal. I request him not to correct my, or for that matter any dialect from Karnataka and Kerala, as that's how we've been speaking and writing for scores of centuries. I have no problems with the user contesting my arguments or propositions as long as the discussions remain within the realm of healthy discussion.

I have been given to understand that articles out of the sandbox are common property and can not be referred to as my articles. 11:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should not I? I personally do understand Karwari,Honnavar style and Mangalore style and Malvani very well.Then why should I refrain from doing that. I can do it on one condition! You do not comment anything on Prakrit because you do not seem to know either Maharashtri nor Sauraseni. Nijgoykar (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the celebrated prākṛtologist missed out paiśāccī. I shall only comment when deemed necessary. I implore you to kindly comment on the nature of the article. Discussing on the origin of prākṛt will only serve to stall this discussion. Imperium^Caelestis 11:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kanarologist is requested not to mix Prakrit and later Apabjramsha as the term Paishachi is ambiguous.(stop getting personal again) Nijgoykar (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must refrain from using words like you do not seem to know. You should have as much faith in my understanding as I am expected to have in yours. Historian Rajawade has opined that the Konkani Ramayana (Krishnadas Shama), Jnaneshwari, Krista Purana had words of paiśāccī Konkani language. (A History of Konkani literature, Sardessaya, pp 37,38)Imperium^Caelestis 12:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didnt forger Paishachi.Check that article you would understand who has added the Konkani stuff to the Paishachi article. Nijgoykar (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming?

I suggest this article be merged into Canara Konkani as the title Karnataka Konkani will leave Kerala dialects out of scope. The GSBs from Kerala speak a dialect similar to the GSBs of South Kanara (Dakshina Kannada and Udupi) and the Konkani speaking Catholics from Kerala refer to themselves as Mangalorean Catholics.Imperium^Caelestis 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Dialects of Konkani from South India instead? AshLin (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Canara refers to the three coastal districts of modern-day Karnataka - Uttara Kannada, Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts. Furthermore, Canara didn't include parts of modern Kerala state. So, using either name would leave the Konkani speakers in Kerala aside. It would be best to name it according to whichever title the experts call it by. Use Google book search for this. I disagree with the title. The experts refer to the type of Konkani spoken in Karnataka by an encompassing name. The Kudumbis are the only Konkani speaking community in Kerala with it's own unique dialect. So, perhaps we could keep a separate article for Kerala Konkani. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. lets get started. Imperium^Caelestis 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what we had agreed upon in the original talk page of Canara Konkani? I had said this before and I'm saying it again... All dialects of Konkani (be it Kanara or Kerala) need to be merged into the main Konkani language article. Having different pages (one for Goan Konkani, one for Karnataka Konkani and one for Kerala Konkani) is an exercise in patronizing redundancy. I really don't think there should be a separate page for Canara or Karnataka Konkani. Linguists such as George Cardona or Kalelkar do not classify it as such. Dialects of Konkani spoken in Karnataka are not a homogeneous group. Please do not create any more articles without fully outlining the scope of that article. ¬ Aog^{hac^2z} | 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Southern Konkani dialects ?its shorter than Dialects of Konkani from South India. Nijgoykar (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of Konkani dialects spoken in Goa, List of Konkani dialects spoken in Karnataka, List of Konkani dialects spoken in Kerala and List of Konkani dialects spoken in Maharashtra. Then we could create a separate article on the dialect of each community. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My article

when I say my article I do not mean to say its my property,it merely means articles started by me thats all.I do not need any sort of publicity,if that was the case I would have used my real name. Nijgoykar (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using one's real name does not mean that the person seeks publicity. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I never meant to point out fingers at you!I should never have been on wikipedia I would rather stop this than being misunderstood by everyone! Nijgoykar (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My brothers, lets put an end to all this. lets start working on the merger. User Nijgoykar, your depth of knowledge is much appreciated and welcome. I know you might have differences with other people and with me in particular, however I'd request you to submit your differences in amicable language. I shall do the same. mog asso!!Imperium^Caelestis 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nijgoykar, i know that you didn't mean to single me out. But that comment inferred that all those who use their real names are publicity seekers. I disagreed with it, which is why i posted that comment. I bear no grudge against you or anyone for that matter. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motive behind the merge?

Please look at Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_Konkani#Issues_revisited

The proposal there was to merge significant portions of the content from Kanara Konkani into the MAIN konkani language article @ Konkani language. The reasons and rationale for doing so have been provided there. We already have pages for Konkani Phonology and Konkani script.. and possibly even Konkani Language Agitation. If we move relevant content to all these pages, I don't think we will have any content left to merge into Karnataka Konkani. As such, by channeling our future actions in this pursuit, Karnataka Konkani (and Kanara Konkani) pages will cease to exist. I see two possible alternatives in this pursuit.

Merge Canara Konkani to Karnataka Konkani first. That way we eliminate one level of redundancy. Once that is done, we can proceed with merging content from Karnataka Konkani into relevant pages (Konkani language, Konkani Phonology, Konkani script, Konkani Language Agitation)... thereby slowing eliminating the need for Karnataka Konkani to exist as a separate page

Instead of taking the above mentioned route, take steps to directly merge content from Canara Konkani into relevant pages..(Konkani language, Konkani Phonology, Konkani script, Konkani Language Agitation). That way, the workload would be reduced. Even though the 1st alternative is a phased out approach, the work load associated with it is obviously more than this one.

¬ Aog^{hac^2z} | 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sluffering sluccotash!! (lisping intended) I knew you'd get to that. As much as I hate to admit it, you do have a point. Once this, and the Canara Konkani, article are deboned and distributed amongst other relevant articles, there won't be much need to have a separate article. Imperium^Caelestis 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay but dont get to ready to delete Karnataka Konkani immediately, lets take it one step at a time.