Jump to content

Talk:Odia language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Oriya languages)

Help Put In More Content

[edit]

I think this article needs a lot more content, compared to other Indian languages this article has a lot less content, I would do it myself but I don't know that much about Oriya. user talk:24.107.115.178 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest moving the Oriya Script article here, it seems more logical. user talk:24.107.115.178 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample text

[edit]

Can someone pleaase provide a picture of a sample text (here and in Oriya script page) (because I doubt many computers support oriya fonts)? mikka (t) 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 118.172.58.166 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

translators needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation--D-Boy 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periodization

[edit]

The periodization used in this article seems to be that of Oriya literature. Are the periods the same for the language itself? —WikiMarshall (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Haripriya Misra's Historical Oriya Morphology, the periods are Proto-Oriya (Caryā), Early Oriya (inscriptions, Mādaḷāpāñji), Middle Oriya (Sāraḷādāsa through Brajanātha), and Modern Oriya (Rādhānātha on). Does this seem about right? —WikiMarshall (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA Banner/Orissa Addition

[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Odisha or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya language template

[edit]

If you are a native speaker of Oriya then you can add this template onto user userpage:


or-Nଏହି ସଭ୍ୟଙ୍କ ମାତୃଭାଷା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ।


--Amazonien (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya Unicode fonts can be downloaded from these websites (and then saving it directly to C:\Windows\Fonts):

--Amazonien (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Oriya font.

[edit]

Ok, this isn't with finding one. I DID find a font (GIST-OROTMutka-Normal) and displays on the Oriya font section in Internet section. It's the display issue with Safari. I tried going to the Oriya wiki but it did not display. But on IE, it works perfectly fine. Anyway to display Oriya fonts on Safari? Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Odia" approved

[edit]

Parliament approves new name for Orissa (Odisha) and Oriya (Odia). utcursch | talk 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that the name of the language in English is to be changed outside of India. -- Evertype·✆ 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that Oriya is the word spoken more commonly. See WP:COMMONNAME--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As, under Wikipedia guidelines, this article should be in Indian English, it really doesn't matter what it is known as outside India. If it is known as Odia in India, that is what the Wikipedia article should be titled. The question is, has the new name caught on in India? Skinsmoke (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're an international encyclopedia, not a national one. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I look forward to your proposal to convert all American English spellings to British English, rather than having parts of the encyclopedia written in a corrupted local variant. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is rough consensus that it's too early to tell if the common name has changed. Cúchullain t/c 13:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Relist. Orlady (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC) As the article Orissa now moved to Odisha; see the discussion here, this page and other pages at Oriya should be moved to Odia language and so on. ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Look at those hits! The first ones are "ODIA: the Offshore Divers Industry Agreement" and "O Dia Journal". Plus it sounds "odious".
    Google hits are not good reason to move, but if you're going to do it, at least do it right. 'Odia language' - Oriya gets 32k hits,[1] while 'Oriya language' -Odia gets 'about' 250k.[2] And all of our linguist references use "Oriya". For the people, it's 5k vs 35k, and for literature it's 6k vs 23k. No contest. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, "it sounds "odious""...seriously? What sort of comment is that to make about a people's adjective and language? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does. It sounds like the word "odious". "Odias" and "odious" are particularly close. — kwami (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - (1). Let's remember we're primarily only talking about a change in romanization here. The endonym hasn't changed, and the spellings "Odiya" "Odia" "Uriya" "Oriya" have all been in use in British colonial texts before the 1948-2010 "Oriya" . (2). Google searches are pointless; we know what the WP:COMMONNAME inside India from 1948-2010 was. (3) This article doesn't have a "Indian English" tag, but then most US and UK geo articles don't either, it doesn't mean that we would use US and UK English in the opposite articles, does it? For Indian English sources Times of India "Odia" is written in Indian English, and Indian English sources are where 99% of 2013 hits related to Oriya/Odia are going to occur, now and in future. The issue of this RM is not "what was the Indian English name prior to 2010" but do we accept e.g. Times of India as as valid for 2013 India usage as the London Times for 2013 UK usage and New York Times for 2013 US usage? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just romanization. The pronunciation also changes.
We also don't take narrowly national approaches to articles. Where international forms are available, they're preferred. "Ganges", for example, not "Ganga", despite some vociferous objections to "Ganges". The international WP:COMMONNAME of the language is "Oriya". — kwami (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was WP:OLDCOMMONNAME prior to 4 November 2011 - but what evidence do we have that linguists worldwide will all dig their heels in and refuse to adopt the name used by their in-India counterparts and in-India schoolbooks and in-India newspapers. Linguists are unlikely to hold out for an American name or British name for an Indian language when the American/British name looks increasingly old-fashioned and even colonial in India. Even though it's almost humourously insignifcant now, in view of historical significance of the first English grammars, note that even an old colonial institution like the Bible Society of India Odisha Auxiliary is now saying The Odia Bible celebrated its Bicentenary in 2011. Where's the evidence the linguistic community outside India intends to oppose and resist the in-India change? I can't even find any papers on Odia/Odiya/Oriya on Google Scholar since 4 November 2011. What evidence is there that British and American linguists of Odiya intend to oppose the Indian government on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:crystal ball. — kwami (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, that's exactly the point, WP:NOT crystal ball. 4 November 2011 to Feb 2013 is 14 months. During that 14 months evidently Odia (back near to T. J. Maltby's 1846 spelling Odiya) has already been adopted in the Indian press, schools. Where's the evidence that during those 14 months the three-dozen or so westerners who even know what the Odiya language is have made a united stand against Indian English? Where's the evidence that "Oriya" is being used in linguistic publications published now, in 2013? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm relisting this discussion (assuming I correctly remembered the syntax for relisting). It would help if participants could provide more explanation of the background for the proposed name change. Please don't assume that everyone who reads this discussion is familiar with the background. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Oriya, the letter transcribed "ṛ" is a variant (allophone) or "ḍ" between vowels. The native name is "oṛiā". The question is how to render that "ṛ" in English. Both "r" and "d" are used, neither exactly right. The linguistics community has long used "Oriya", but the Oriya govt has decided they want it to be "Odia". If the linguistics community decides to follow and adopts "Odia" then so should we, but until that happens, we'd be violating COMMONNAME in order to violate CRYSTALBALL. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, again, where is your evidence that it hasn't already happened? The Indian linguistics community (which primarily means school boards in Orissa/Odisha obviously) have already adopted it, as have Indian newspapers. Crystalball refers to the future, not 14 months ago. As for pronunciation that is for IPA boxes in lead, I've only ever heard English speakers (meaning in India) pronouncing "Oriya/Odia" following Hindi ओड़िया and the Hindi hasn't changed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is backwards. If you claim it's happened, then it's up to you to provide the evidence. Evidently you don't have any. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Evidently you don't have any" green added to evidences of Indian English given above. That's exactly the point. There aren't any American-English or British-English evidences in the last 14 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many scholars of Indic languages outside India. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - per "this is the Indian wikipedia and we use Indian English" (tongue in cheek, but still true). Although there was a whingey op-ed in 2009 in Times of India we're now seeing 18 Feb 2013 Odia primer in new avatar "Written more than a century ago, Odia primer 'Barnabodha' has re-entered the market in a brand new look." etc. Oriya language joins T. J. Maltby's earlier spellings Uriya and Odiya as Indian English's past. Oriya Wikipedia → Odia Wikipedia has long ago changed over welcome/keyboard instructions on homepage. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An Advanced Google search for Oriya language in English over the last year, excluding Odia and Wikipedia gives 9,850 hits (page through to the final page and that is 430 unduplicated hits). A similar search confined to websites in India (to limit the results to Indian English), gives 5,930 hits (453 unduplicated hits). A search for Odia language excluding Oriya and Wikipedia gives 3,270 hits (423 unduplicated hits), which, if confined to websites in India turns out to be 2,580 hits (393 unduplicated hits). That means that Oriya still has the edge internationally by 50.4 per cent to 49.7 per cent (very close, and certainly not enough to justify kwami screaming COMMON NAME down our ears). In Indian English, Oriya has a greater lead than in the world at large, by 53.5 per cent to 46.5 per cent. Regretably, I have to say that on those figures, Oriya is still the nearest we have to a common term, both internationally and in Indian English. I haven't had the time to look at the results in detail, so if anyone want to do an analysis of those hits, it could help us come to a firmer conclusion one way or the other. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Skinsmoke, that's a very sensible and straight analysis. I have to say I don't see any urgency to support all the moves this time (except Odia Wikipedia, which would be ridiculous not to follow or.wp's own homepage) it's not as if this language is a rapper whose name changes within 10 days when a new CD hits the top 10. We can afford to drag our heels and make the moves at 24 months rather than 14. But I honestly think this is one of the quickest take ups of a new name in India I've seen within the last 20 years. And it's evident that even when urls can't change at the drop of a hat, the most relevant html and newsprint content has hurried to change. http://www.orissasociety.org/lets-learn-odia/ ...also I was just looking at Indian Express and a few other pages. They didn't switch till summer 2012, so half of the 2012 search includes Oriya. But in the first 2 months of 2013, Odia Odia Odia. Let's see whether some other editors turn up, the move is only an issue of timing. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A nonsense count by someone who doesn't know how Google works doesn't mean anything. Where are the RS's? — kwami (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really are starting to sail a bit too close to the wind kwami. You might be wise to try and moderate your language, which is becoming increasingly objectionable in these discussions. I know we've all been guilty of it at sometime or other (some of us, ahem, more recently than others), but still... Skinsmoke (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure about this. The change from Orissa to Odisha followed an official change and the resulting shift in common usage makes sense. Language, on the other hand, is more complicated and I think it would be better to wait. Call this a weak oppose because I don't really see Oriya or Odia language being taught or referenced a great deal outside India!--regentspark (comment) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Some are Oriya while the others redirect to ...of Odisha. The Oriya ones will no doubt change if, and when, common use changes for those individual items. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter anymore, since JHunterJ split the dab page in two. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that causes problems. The split appears to be completely against the disambiguation guidelines, as we shouldn't have a disambiguation page for just two items. I've asked JHunterJ to clarify. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JHJ removed many Oriya/Odia entries, so the contents of the two new pages combined is less than what was there before. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is that Odia is now common use. However, that is contested. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment on and request re Odia

[edit]

Most of Indian languages are sound based (Phonetics) and not rule based/syllables like Marathi, Bohjpuri and Odia. These are exceptions with others like Malayalam. Odia may not stress on "D but a similar pronunciation. Oriya is a more apabramsha of Odia and was due to colonization. Most of Hindi speaking people may not be able to say it. The "Sha" in Odisha is the same as the "Sha" in Shiva. I will still give more inputs on this article in my free time. I tried putting a Odia script but it didn't get uploaded in the page. I am not sure how to do it. Can someone suggest? or I can email anyone who can upload it? Thanks--Arjyap (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya language materials

[edit]

https://archive.org/details/SabdatattwabodhaAbhidhana-OriyaEtymologicalDictionary1916.pdf

https://archive.org/details/typicalselection01mazuuoft

Oḍiā

http://books.google.com/books?id=VCA6B0ZHjk0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. I also note that Britannica notes but does not have its listing under the proposed name, which actually reflects our current setup; and that a few of the commenters here have few edits outside of the current topic (although it is important to assume good faith. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– It's been almost 18 months since the last move request, and in fact Orissa was changed to Odisha shortly before the last request here. I've had a very unhappy editor on my talk page complaining when I reverted him at Oriya alphabet and his complaint should be given a hearing. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 AjaxSmack  I don't think it appropriate to have piped the "bureaucratic decisions" link. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't use it. —  AjaxSmack  03:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Threaded discussion

[edit]

User:Gregkaye, User:Dankitydank, are your supports also for a move to Odia alphabet? I ask because you both seem to mention only the language. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kwamikagami's site-wide replacement of Odia with Oriya

[edit]

I see that the user @Kwamikagami: appears to be systematically replacing all instances of Odia in Wikipedia (not just article titles) with Oriya even though Odia is the official and now oft-used variant of the word. He has pointed me to the discussion on this page which pertains solely to the article title. I don't see the sense in this and I don't see any consensus on such a site-wide move. Can someone provide more information or link me to an "official" position on such matters? Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about what's official, but what's common usage in English. If India changed its official name to Bharat, we would continue to call it India until general English usage changed. General usage for this language is "Oriya". — kwami (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see harsh notes like We don't care by Kwamikagami above. This is not really the prescribed tone in Wikipedia. How wise is it to put individual opinion as We ? Devopam (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Official names we (that is Wikipedia) does not care in this instance, because there is a common name and common names are used before official names. I also have been changing "Odia" to "Oriya". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth:, @Kwamikagami: Thanks for your replies. Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL are guidelines for article titles. What is under question is the use of the official and now mainstream variant in article text (and contrasting consistent spelling with organic growth). And IMO, the "general usage" that is being bandied about in this thread as well as in the "move" discussions is based on rather flimsy arguments.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be confusing to use one word for the title and another in the prose. My feeling on it is Wikipedia should follow trends, not lead them. To use some other name then the most common name would be telling people they should use this name not that in Wikipedia's voice. That is using Wikipedia to right wrongs and people trying to use Wikipedia to right wrongs is, to my mind, the source of most tendentious editing. The ONLY wrong Wikipedia is use to right is lack of access to neutral information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to interject my thoughts here... these kind of changes happens because of some people's whims and fancies and mostly governed around those who are in the power to push it thru the assemblies and legislatures (why Orissa, even Mumbai/ Bombay or Kolkatta/ Calcutta etc.)... and not sure what they were waiting for even after 60+ years of Indian independence... so what is common usage here?... Some people cite google or bing search lists but factually that would be biased for things started creeping up on internet only during late 90's or 2000's where publications started pushing their articles on the net... what about the numerous articles on newspaper, or magazines which refer the old name before that time... My point being, just putting a pointer that we have x number of results on google with "Odia" which is greater than "y" results, so this change should be done. And also why are we trying to change the tone of the discussion between "I and We"... Kwami has a point and so do you Devopam. Thanks. --Karan1974 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karan1974: They might be whims and fancies. But you will notice that hardly anybody calls Chennai, Madras nowadays nor Mumbai, Bombay. IOW, these whimsical changes do take effect for a variety of reasons. The same is already true for Odisha and I argue in the move request below, that it is also so for Odia which is now the common and preferred spelling. I believe that it is incorrect to "fix" the spelling of those users who prefer this variant which is already or will soon be the dominant form. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cpt.a.haddock for your thoughts, and do agree that these are observations, and people do use either or one over the other or use one but correct themselves with the updated change or even the newer name followed by formerly called the old name. Regarding who calls it by what name is more a matter about if the person is from the immediate local perimeter or from some other place. It will no doubt the prevalent subsequently as this is all official now and all the articles or publications would be using it subsequently. However the important question right now is that should we be making the change now or should we exercise a balanced approach as what has been done with Mumbai page. Thanks,. --Karan1974 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per request and COMMONNAME - the can of worms is open as there are 27-28 additional titles using Oriya instead of Odia. All may not require change, but I am confident many will to maintain consistency within the encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Oriya language → Odia language – Revisiting the move request, there is enough evidence to show that the official term Odia is now in common use. Consider: [[:File:DD_Odia.png|right|DD Odia logo]]

1. Oxford Dictionaries Online, a dictionary by the compilers of the OED, prefers Odia over Oriya. It defines Oriya as the "Former term for Odia".

2. Collins Dictionary too similarly prefers Odia to Oriya and considers the latter the dated alternative of the former.

3. Mainstream TV channels such as DD Odia and Colors Odia prefer the Odia variant.

4. As for Google results, Google Trends shows that Odia (language) has already overtaken the use of Oriya and will continue to do so. Here is an alternative comparison of 'Odia' and 'Oriya' confined to India alone.

5. (added later) Tracking the use of Odia and Oriya in major English newspapers of India:

6. (added later) The official name of the state of Orissa was changed to Odisha and its language from Oriya to Odia in 2011. While the Orissa article was moved to Odisha in January 2013, the language article has not been similarly updated. This is both inconsistent and confusing.

7. (added later) The 2014 edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics is another reliable source that gives preference to Odia over Oriya (and Odisha over Orissa).

I could go on. But I believe that this is sufficient evidence to support the move.-- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Google Books results,[3] where "Oriya" dominates. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See reply below.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no, "Odiya" is even rarer than the originally proposed "Odia" which is by itself extremely rare. Khestwol (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Devopam: Please clarify whether you are supporting a move to Odiya or to Odia and edit your support statement above if necessary. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My silly mistake of adding another 'y' while trying to put up a response has caused enough damage already . I meant Odia only.
  • Oppose. We've had this discussion before, two threads up. The common form in English publication is "Oriya".[4] In the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (read the review there), S Munshi, R Miranda, E Annamalai, S Shukla, H-R Thompson, R Gargesh, U Ammon, and G D S Anderson, most of whom are Indian and several at Indian universities, as well as the editors of the encyclopedia, all use "Oriya", while I cannot find even a single instance of "Odia". Note Devopam's 'support' is for a third form based on a blatantly false claim.
BTW, I personally don't like "Odia" because it sounds odious -- the "hateful" language. Rather like the Birhor ("beer whore") and Anal languages (at Anal people we even have the hat note "For the psychological condition, see Anal retentive"!) -- Not names you'd want to use if you had a choice. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books Ngram is not particularly relevant as this name change occurred in 2011 while the Books corpus extends only until 2008. Please feel free to also attempt to explain why international dictionaries, trends, TV channels, and English newspapers appear to prefer the term Odia if you believe that Oriya is the common form in English. As for Devopam's spelling, it's practically homophonous with Odia.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we're debating spelling, and he's supporting a third option. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: Your opposition does not address the fact that dictionaries do not consider it to be the common name any longer. Neither do newspapers or trends. What then is the basis for the WP:COMMONNAME argument? "Appropriate transliterations" are irrelevant.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cpt.a.haddock, Reliable English sources extremely rarely use the spellings "Odia" or "Odia language" as per Google Ngram. The phrase "Odia language" does not even appear in the Ngram, and "Odia" appears far below "Oriya". Khestwol (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: And as I mentioned in my reply to Kwamikagami (which s/he's conveniently decided not to address), Google Ngrams do not address anything beyond 2008. The switch to Odia was made only in 2011. NGrams is therefore not a valid comparator for current common usage in this case. Hence the use of international dictionaries, Google trends, TV channel names, newspaper articles, ad nauseam …--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that includes names such as Odia Coates and Spanish odia 'hates', which sometimes appears in English text (e.g. in names of telenovelas). — kwami (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisvS: That, in many ways, is what this move request is about … per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be Odia. I have provided evidentiary links to support this contention.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: What I see in there is that in the last two years "Odia" is favored slightly. If the range is expanded by a few more years, "Oriya" is favored more strongly. This could mean that usage is changing (but not that it has changed) and that in a number of years when this RM is revisited, the article will move (alternatively, it could be an artifact due to noise). In any case, "Odia" is not (yet?) the common name. --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisvS: There might be a possibility of this being a passing phase if it wasn't also an official governmental decree. Orissa's article has already been renamed to Odisha and both these name changes were decreed at the same time. Then there are the dictionary entries clearly favouring Odia and explicitly defining Oriya as the dated variant. In other words, we have an official source and two highly reliable sources virtually mandating the change in addition to other evidence favouring it. Odia is also the spelling preferred by the Odia Wikipedia. Extending any comparison beyond 2011 isn't useful as the name change hadn't occurred then. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: Both names already existed. Some official decree chooses the uncommon form. But all that does not matter, because Wikipedia does not follow official decrees, but actual usage. Usage may be changing, but it hasn't (yet) happened sufficiently to warrant using the decreed form. --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisvS: "Hasn't (yet) happened sufficiently" according to whom? You are concluding that this is not the common variant based on what exactly? Usage before 2011 on Google Books? How is that a valid comparison? And how does that compare against the weight of international dictionaries—the kind of reliable sources that Wikipedia wants such decisions to be based upon? Anyhow, thank you for sharing your opinion.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: The number of hits. A few more hits for "Odia" over "Oriya" in the last two years, more hits for "Oriya" in the several years before, and a history of "Oriya" being the common name means that "Odia" hasn't established itself (yet) as the new common name. And Wikipedia looks at common usage, not dictionary listings per se. --JorisvS (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisvS: I've appended a comparison of hits from major newspapers in India to my nomination spiel for your perusal. Also, quoting from WP:COMMONNAME, If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: As in my comment on Ngrams, it's meaningless to include results from before 2011. You will also want to exclude all hits from "Wikipedia books" which often generate false positives in these searches and, thanks to the regular replacement of Odia with Oriya, do not reflect general usage. FWIW, many books simply plagiarise Wikipedia content as well.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting a search on Google books to 2014 and yealds for Odia nothing and oriya nothing and for that matter book nothing. So it looks likes nothing has been added to Google books index since 2014. Which is strange, but need not be addressed here. Google books searching is meaningless if it is not kept up to date. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - (Not much familiar with the formatting and editing of Wikipedia, so please excuse if this message doesn't come up properly) I am a native of the state of Odisha in India. The prevalance of Odia as the English version of the name for the language and the people is now widespread both in and outside the state. New books printed for schools has the name as Odia while print and electronic media now stick to the new spelling. That is one of the reason when a few days back while searching for something and I came across this discrepancy, I had gone ahead and modified a few pages. Unfortunately, those were reverted back saying that in general prevalence Oriya is more popular. I am not sure where folks are getting a feel of the general usage of the word. Odisha, not being one of the developed states in the country, is usually not much in news. While reading the arguments opposing the change, I see folks mentioning the name Oriya being used by linguists. Are any of these recent papers? If not, then its expected they should have "Oriya" as the name. Earlier when the language was spelled "Oriya", it was phonetically spelled as "oːɖiaː". So when spoken it always sounded as "Odia". The name change just removed the discrepancy between how it was written and spelled (most Indians are unfamiliar with IPA). The pronunciation was "Odia" simply coz that what the language is called in the native Odia script. Remoonline (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some recent newspaper articles: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. If you search for Odia in the Indian newspapers, the occurrence will be less coz the state's just not that much in the news. It's not high profile enough. But you can also try searches for Oriya in the papers. There will probably be more hits but these will be older news items. Apart from this, in electronic media, long existing TV Channels like DD Oriya, ETV Oriya changed their names to reflect the sentiment and became DD Odia and ETV Odia respectively. Even the Prime Minister's Twitter message wishing us Odias on Maha Vishubha Shankranti used Odia. He tweeted, "Narendra Modi(@narendramodi: Wishing all my Odia sisters and brothers on Maha Vishuba Sankranti. I pray for a wonderful year ahead, full of prosperity and joy."
@Kwamikagami: Regarding Odia seeming a hateful language just for the change in spelling of its name, please understand everyone calls it the same whether they spell it "Oriya" or "Odia". Remoonline (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Remoonline: What do you mean by "everyone calls it the same"? If you mean pronounces it the same, that's not so: One is pronounced with an /r/ (which sounds 'golden'), the other with a /d/ (which sounds 'hateful'). Neither is particularly close to the Oriya pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: That has never been the case ever in all the years I have studied, spoken or heard Odia spoken by a Odia or non-Odia. It has always been pronounced with /d/ and never with /r/. Even in the "Oriya language" wiki article, I see the "Pronunciation" in the right side table give this as "oːɖiaː". Odia, like most other Indian languages, follows an alphasyllabary writing system. The language's correct name is "ଓଡିଆ". The "ଡ଼ି" in the middle is "di" and not "ri". If there was an intention to pronounce "Oriya, it would have been "ଓରିୟା". Can you provide some instance based on which you are claiming it is not close to the actual pronunciation? - Remoonline (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Remoonline: I've taken the liberty of moving the list of newspaper articles to an inline list for brevity. I hope that this is fine. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: I think that makes it look neater. I would have done that had I known it could be done. Thanks! Remoonline (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to give an example Khestwol? If you are referring to the message left on Greg's talk page, that was not canvassing for votes, but merely informing editors involved in the previous discussion that this matter is being discussed again. That is considered good practice on Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: As WP:CAN recommends, the nom asked both those who had voted for and against the move in earlier move requests to participate in this one. As the guideline recommends, the nom used the neutral {{Please see}} template to do so.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: User:Khestwol's Google NGrams-based evidence is flawed as it only plots usage until 2008. We are talking of usage post-2011 when the name-change occurred. His other point on Oriya being an "appropriate transliteration" is irrelevant to this discussion on common usage.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That Google NGrams only plot usage until 2008 is not a flaw, merely a limitation. In this case, it is a good counterweight to the RECENTISM of supposing that the name of a language can be suddenly OFFICIALly changed and that all previous usage should be wiped from the map. I would look at usage in reliable sources over about 50 years in the case of a language as sources and usage are not wholesale thrown by the wayside merely due to this "official" change. Wikipedia should reflect usage in these sources and not merely what is trendy in recent online activity. Unlike an administrative entity such as a city or state, a language name is not necessarily the purview of the state. (And "Bangalore" remains at that title nearly a decade after its official name change.) —  AjaxSmack  02:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: Thank you for the explanation. What Wikipedia should or shouldn't do is a matter for a different forum. To quote from WP:COMMONNAME, the policy that decides the choice of article title, If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. In other words, recentism is very important and reliable sources such as dictionaries and newspapers in the time after the change, have largely switched to using Odia just like they have with Odisha (which Wikipedia (as per WP:COMMONNAME) switched to in 2013). As for Bangalore, note that official change by the central government only actually occurred around 8 months ago.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regarding who calls it by what name is more a matter about perspective and if the person is from the immediate local perimeter or from other areas. I understand that it will no doubt be prevalent for it's being used by all the netizens (people of social media or even publications or whatever) and it's being officially announced, and people have to adhere to the accepted standards per accepted (or read official) conventions. So what makes it right? Points put forth by user kwami is right in the sense that if India is called 'Bharat' or 'Hindustan', should we adapt to that or wait for a more coherent standard or even exercise a diligent approach of adhering to conventions (not standards) that's been done on wiki for other areas like Mumbai or Chennai or Kolkatta. Thanks,--Karan1974 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My immediate question to all the naysayers... So what't the rationale that English and Oriya language referred to the same stuff with different pronunciations in the common language and in the vernacular languages, though it intended to represent the same thing even that too after 60+ years of Indian independence? Thanks, --Karan1974 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karan1974: The issue under question here is whether Odia has superseded Oriya as the preferred (current) WP:COMMONNAME spelling for the language. That (see above) is what dictionary entries, usage in major English newspapers, and other trends suggest. We are adhering to the diligent, coherent approach here as per the afore-linked Wikipedia policy. Please take the time to read through it.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: Thanks for the suggestion to read, however it was not needed but thanks anyway. The evidence shown here to prove Odia has superseded Oriya goes with assumption that there were very few books written or newspapers/ journals published before the web became prevalent and somehow people became vociferous writers after that (IOW 15 years has trumped 200+ years as far as literary knowledge is concerned, amusing), which is inherently flawed. I will be glad to be corrected on this aspect. Thanks, --Karan1974 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a linguist, I saw this discussion and got a wince in my head. the letter we are primarily arguing about is ɺ̢, the retroflex lateral flap as in the Japanese syllables RA RI RU RE RO. It is present in many Indian dialects of Tamil and in Konkani-Marathi, Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani and Bhili, often as intervocalic forms of ḷ but also from other origins. In no way should our discussion of which native Oriya/Odia letter it is written with like have anything to do with this argument, because that's by definition OR. We need to stick to the relevant facts: Oriya is historically used, Odia is being phased in, that sort of thing. Please stop speculating on what it "should" be because there isn't even an International Phonetic Alphabet letter for it. Ogress smash! 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Unrelated to my linguistics comment above is my vote for Odia for the sheer reason that govermental and social movements are changing the spelling, and yo: they get to call it what they want, man. Odisha and Odia, word. I think it looks wrong, but it's not my job to decide that. Ogress smash! 01:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I strongly go with Odia - the reason being my ex-colleague Subhashish Panigrahi. We worked together at Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India till last year where he was the programme Officer in-charge of promoting Odia Wikipedia. He is also the admin there and has worked on Odia software. He always uses Odia on his blogs - please check his WMF blogs - most of his blogs are based on the language. --Muzammil (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both the most common name and the official name are Odia. —Nightstallion 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

[edit]
  • Oppose. The name should be the one our readers are most likely to see, whether they are reading a current news item or an old book. The evidence given above shows that "Oriya" is still the more common form. Eventually the official name will become dominant, but that will not happen for some time. A redirect works for now. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: Could you please elaborate on which evidence you are referring to? Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I skimmed the above, then checked myself for "Oriya language", "Odia language" and "Odiya language":
Source Oriya language Odia language Odiya language
Google News 88 556 23
Google Books 981 229 269
General web search 329,000 52,000 7,430
JSTOR 109 1 3
This is not particularly scientific, and I see no way of checking what people were reading when they decided to look up the term in Wikipedia, but think it is reasonable to take the general web as a proxy. I would guess that non-Indian readers are less likely to be reading Indian newspapers, but more likely to look it up. The older sources create inertia. Newer ones will eventually make Odia dominant, but that has not happened yet. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: Thank you for digging into this. FYI, we are primarily only concerned with usage after the name change. To quote from WP:COMMONNAME, the policy that decides the choice of article title, If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. Of the three sources that you have compared, only Google News tends to concentrate on recent data (i.e., data after the name change) which, as you can see, overwhelmingly favours "Odia language". As for people looking up things, two reliable mainstream dictionaries explicitly prefer Odia over Oriya. So does the most recent edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. IOW, Odia is already more dominant. Please also note that Google Books data (unreliable as it generally is) is peppered with excerpts from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia currently replaces all general uses of the word Odia with Oriya.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. In this case, "Oriya" is more often used by the article sources. "More weight should be given" to sources published after the change does not mean "overwhelming weight should be given". The question is whether readers are more likely to look for "Oriya language" or "Odia language" in Wikipedia. They are most likely to search in Wikipedia after seeing the term in another source, and based on the above are most likely to have seen "Oriya language", so that is the natural title. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: So are you basically saying that "overwhelming weight" should be given to what is being used in the sources for the article itself (sources that the reader is unlikely to see) than current usage in the real world that the user will be more likely to see? The policy states that the article title should not be changed simply due to an official name change. It should use the name used in reliable sources, and if those reliable sources largely prefer to use the official name after the name change, then that name should be used as the article's title. The very fact that Orissa was changed to Odisha in January 2013 is testament to this line of reasoning. I'm not sure if I understood your point about readers searching for content in Wikipedia. Are you perhaps concerned about readers reading articles within Wikipedia itself, coming across the word Oriya, and then searching for it? If so, then that is not of relevance to this discussion. That is what hyperlinks and redirects are for. In any event, the same bots that religiously replace all mention of the word Odia with Oriya can also do the reverse in a relative jiffy. Anyhow, thank you for chiming in :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • People will read sources that were published before or after the name change, and that use the term "Oriya language", "Odiya language" or "Odia language". If they are curious about the language, they will enter the term in the browser search window, and the Wikipedia article will show up near the top of the results. If the Wikipedia article has a different title from the term they entered, it will be slightly confusing. The policy says we should give greater weight to what sources published after the change use, since people are more likely to read recent publications than older ones. But the numbers indicate that "Oriya language" is still the most likely search term, so that is still the best title. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: I agree that folks will be confused when they come with one name and find another. In fact, a few months back, that was the reason I created my account when I saw the discrepancy. But given the meagre mention of either Odia or Oriya in international media, I would say you are wrong that most searches from people curious about Odia and searching for it will be from outside India. Most of the searches will originate from india and will be on the same lines as has been shown in Indian media. I took a look at the references used in the article and didn't come across any International news media citation. All media citations are from Indian newspapers. They had Oriya then as Oriya was the English name for the language. Now that it has been changed to Odia, and the same is in common usage in media and as well among the general populace, it seems rather retrogressive to expect to change it only when the name appearing in International media. If this had been a criterion, probably no pages for Odia language or people would have been on Wikipedia. - Remoonline (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it that you you're basically disagreeing with the policy. FWIW, the more likely search term between "Oriya language" and "Odia language" is the latter. As for "numbers", besides the Google News numbers, the ones in your table are effectively out of date.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with the policy. We go with what is most often used by reliable sources, giving more weight to recent ones. But we recognize that people will still use older sources, like books, so will still search on the older term. There is a lag before the newer term starts to dominate sources and the title should be changed. The Google trends are interesting. Both terms were running at about 40 per week, then there was a spike on "Odia language" in the last three weeks that pushed it up to 100. Most of the searches had been from Odisha, but in the spike period they shot up in West Bengal. Probably not statistically significant. The numbers are very low. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what the policy states at all. There is no "we recognise that people will still use older sources" clause at all in deciding the article's title. That is handled by redirects, mentions, and such, as has been done in the case of Odisha. We are only interested in current common usage and the lag is already over. Odia is either on equal footing or dominates everywhere right now. Which is why dictionaries and, as noted previously, linguists, prefer Odia to Oriya. The numbers in Trends (which also favour Odia) are not low and do not represent search volume. They are relative to total searches. You can read more about what they mean here. And (from my nomination spiel up top) this is what the Trend looks like without the "language" limitation.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it a bit early to make this move. The nom uses dictionaries and Indian newspapers as evidence but both are weak. Dictionaries are definitional and say nothing about common usage. Indian newspapers would naturally use an official Indian name but it does not follow that the rest of the world does so as well. The New York Times, for example, hasn't used Odia (the most recent usage I could find was Oriya in December 2013). The BBC (August 2013) also uses Oriya with no instances of Odia at all. A June 2015 article in the Columbia Record refers to the Oriya language, again without mentioning Odia. Then, I find this 2014 or later reference from SOAS that uses Oriya language (finally recognising Oriya as a classical language in 2014) while referring to the state as Odisha and that should be convincing evidence that the renaming of the language is not taking place at the same rate as the renaming of the state. --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia Record piece is not from June 2015. It is from September 3, 2009. The BBC article from 2013 also uses Orissa at a point when Wikipedia had already moved the article to Odisha. Besides, here is a BBC article from January 2014 which uses Odisha and Odia. As for the SOAS piece, it is a bio of an alumni written by his granddaughter. Hardly what you would call academic literature. Frankly, Orissa, Odisha, Oriya or Odia are hardly ever mentioned in the Western media. We can't plot the rise and fall of effectively nothing from effectively nothing. We have to make use of what is available. If Indian newspapers only used official names, then there would be very little mention of Oriya (or Orissa for that matter) at all after a point. This is simply not the case as represented by the numbers. Usage of Oriya is simply falling gradually in favour of Odia. This is also the case with search trends. And while the use of Odia has become dominant in India, Wikipedia systematically tells people that it is incorrect usage by replacing all use of it in the encyclopaedia. Thank you for jumping in.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies about the Columbia Record article (a June 2015 date shows up when searching on the columbia.edu page and, though that is no excuse, I'm traveling with annoyingly slow internet services). And note that I'm only "jumping in" because of your note on my talk page. But, the larger point is that language usage is not just limited to current usage but is also - and often largely - related to historical usage. Agreed that there is a paucity of sources on the language in non-Indian sources but I'd prefer to see a move request that focuses on usage in academic and non-Indian sources rather than on dictionaries and Indian sources. If institutional sources have moved to Odia language then we should do so as well. If not, then we should not. I see little evidence of that and the meagre search I am able to do (slow internet) shows only Oriya language (UC Berkeley, Harvard South Asian Institute,Harvard South Asian Institute, U of Chicago) --regentspark (comment) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose changes to place names catch on quicker, because they are administrative units and legal entities, while a change to the way a language name is transliterated takes longer to get accepted. Some academics may disagree with the new transliteration. There is less official force behind the change...
The basic disagreement seems to be whether the article should have the title that is now the official term used by everyone who knows what is correct, or whether it should be the term that someone who has never heard of the language before is likely to stumble across. My sympathy is with the ignorant person who finds the language mentioned in a book or article they are reading. I interpret the policy as saying we should use the term they are most likely to have found. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those "ignorant" people will be from India who would have come across the name in one of the Indian newspapers. There doesn't seem to be much mention of either Oriya or Odia in international media, so it's rather farfetched to expect the majority of "ignorant" people to be from outside India. It has been already shown that Indian media has Odia as the commonly used spelling for the English name of the language. Or, did I mis-interpret and your sympathies are only with "ignorant" people searching for the language outside India? - Remoonline (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers are unlikely to say much about a language compared to magazine articles, books and papers. It is hard to separate informed people who are checking what is said from ignorant people who are trying to find out about the subject. According to Google Trends, almost all the recent searches for "Odia language" come from Howrah in West Bengal. If we zoom out to a 12-month period Bhubaneswar is the main origin for searches, with Howrah still contributing a fair number. These searches may mostly be by informed people. A statistician might be inclined to throw out the "outlier" Howrah and Bhubaneswar results and look at what is left, in which case "Oriya" would clearly dominate in India and elsewhere. The term "Oriya language" is the most common in books, JSTOR and the web as a whole. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belittling of newspapers in comparison to magazine articles, books, and papers is misguided at best. And we are only looking at **current** common usage as the question is whether Odia has now become the current WP:COMMONNAME. Please feel free to refine your JSTOR and other searches to 2011 onwards which is the only (post name change) time period we really care about for this decision. You talk about outliers and yet take no cognisance of the fact that JSTOR, etc. and usage outside India are themselves the biggest outliers of all. Bhubaneshwar is the capital of Odisha, the state where Odia is spoken and is not an outlier. Howrah (synonymous with the large Indian city of Kolkata) in the neighbouring state of West Bengal is not an outlier either. These are the core areas whence the huge majority of usage comes from. The straw-man argument of whether it is "informed people" or "ignorant people" performing the searches is irrelevant both to the COMMONNAME policy and Wikipedia usage in general. And rather than hamstringing your Trends comparison with "Odia language" vs. "Oriya language", please compare "Odia" vs. "Oriya" instead and see what the vast majority is actually searching for in the last year. Note that the "top queries" are all language related. Also, by your convoluted reasoning (mirrored below), the Odisha article should be renamed to Orissa. Chennai should be renamed to Madras and Ho Chi Minh City should be renamed to Saigon to cater to those who pick up old copies of magazines. Those who search for dated terms are redirected to the article featuring the current term. This line of reasoning is completely unrelated to the current move request. If you'd like to debate this policy of only using the current common name in preference to an historical one, then please take it up in the appropriate forum.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not just limited to newspapers. Magazines and books (at least school syllabus) which include anything about Odia language does include it as Odia. When you say you find a greater usage of Oriya, it's in old books. Are you saying a language which doesn't find a mention in print media is popular enough for people to dig up old books/magazines? Have you ever purchased a magazine where there was mention of Odia/Oriya (assuming you are outside India)? There may be some books referred by linguists where we have Oriya. And the reason for that is simple. Most of the research, whatever had gone into the language was done way back when the English name for the language was spelled as "Oriya". Regarding informed people, again, in India there are more than 700 languages. Most people can converse in 2-3 languages but there's still a lot that is unknown. You are right most searches originate from Odisha and Bengal (based on what you said), but most other call origination from India, where the person isn't aware of the language and want to dig some more will include Odia as that's the name they would have got from news or electronic media. These are uninformed people looking for more information. And this number will be substantially more than any calls originating from outside India where news and electronic media don't cover anything related to the language. It would be rare for a person to stumble across Oriya/Odia. At the top of this page there seems to be an appeal to improve the article. This seems moot if despite valid citations change is not allowed giving more importance to historical data than correct information. - Remoonline (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linguists are unlikely to use Wikipedia to find out about the language. A more plausible scenario would be someone flipped through an illustrated book on the Bay of Bengal, or perhaps an old National Geographic, coming across the term and entering it on their mobile to find out more. I do not know how much weight we should give to Google Trends, but they show about equal numbers of searches for "Odia Language" and "Oriya language". The searches for "Odia Language" mostly originate from Odisha and Bengal, almost all from the two cities of Bhubaneswar and Howrah, but no regional or city bias is shown for "Oriya language". There is a sharp increase in searches for "Odia Language" in the past three weeks, from 40 to 100 on the scale, almost all from Howrah, which may be related to this discussion. If we exclude the Bhubaneswar and Howrah searches as outliers, most of the searches from other parts of India and other countries are for "Oriya language". Aymatth2 (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the three examples provided, only one ("Many languages of South Asia poetry") really holds up to scrutiny (with the others being undated/unreliable) and even in that case, Oriya is basically a passing mention in a news piece. In comparison, here are some random examples of Odia being preferred in reliable academic use in the West: University of Michigan paper by a Katherine B. Martineau (2014), Contemporary South Asia article (2015), a journal by the British Association for South Asian Studies, a paper from UC Davis (2014), an article in the journal, Health Expectations (2012), etc. Here's a list on a Cornell of videos by an international NGO named digitalgreen, and an event synopsis for a talk on Odia literature from 2013. But all that said, mention of either Odia or Oriya is relatively very scant in the west. As for the note on your talk page, I left it since you took part in the move request for Orissa to Odisha in 2013. In fact, you were one of the people who supported the move stating, "Skinsmoke's analysis is convincing. It seems to me that Orissa or Odisha is not that well known outside India under either name and skinsmoke's analysis shows that Odisha is the most used within India by a huge margin. Given these two factors, I believe we should simply move the article and refer to the state as Odisha from now on. --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)". IMO, the same logic needs to be applied here as well.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

[edit]

I removed the Oriya pronunciation because it had been tagged for a long time for stress and contradicted our account of the vowel inventory. If someone can fix, that would be great. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you tagged it 6 days ago. That's hardly what I'd call a "long time". And whose vowel inventory account are we talking about? I've reversed the removal. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ours, as I just said. Oriya does not have the vowels oː and aː according to the referenced vowel inventory. The pronunciation is therefore unlikely to be correct. Without a citation, anything can be deleted. If you want to restore it, provide a citation that it is correct. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all citation-less pronunciation guides in keeping with your sentiment.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a violation of WP:POINT and can get you blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia. I left a warning on your talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kwamikagami and Cpt.a.haddock. From my knowledge of few Indo-Aryans languages that I know (Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Hindko...) the word must be [oːɺ̢jaː] (/ɺ̢/ is the retroflex lateral flap) with stress on the first syllable. I suggest to fix and restore the content. Khestwol (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the vowels: Oriya does not have long vowels according to this article. It's more likely to be [oɺ̢jɔ]. But we really can't guess on something like this. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it strange that people are trying to make educated guesses to the pronunciation of a language, with the best of intentions I would like to believe, but with almost no or minimal exposure to the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoonline (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Remoonline: I find it inappropriate that the two users involved in removing /[oːɖiaː]/ from the article are two users who are opposed to the move from Oriya to Odia—one because it sounds "odious" and another because ଓଡ଼ିଆ can apparently only transliterate to Oriya. I don't know whether either pronunciation guide is right or wrong and none of the guides carries a citation. But the timing (in the middle of the move request) is questionable. I just don't have the patience to question it any more.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely not pronounced /[oːɖiaː]/. Not. Why are you screaming about this? It's not like they replaced it with an r. Also, Odia/Oriya's pronunciation of a retroflex lateral flap is attested on two separate Wikipedia pages. Ogress smash! 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: I am not very familiar with IPA. So will not comment on whether that's absolutely correct or not. But, the "di" part of "Odia" is pronounced the same as the "di" part of "India". - Remoonline (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be so. But this pronunciation, which I see now, has been a part of this article since 2012, was tagged with a question about its stress a day after the above move request. Six days later, it is completely removed with a statement about it being unanswered for a "long time". With the 'r' already on the page, the removal of the 'd' by somebody favouring the 'r' in the middle of the move request was/is, to me, decidedly fishy. If you're aware of any source that attests to this IPA transcription of ଓଡ଼ିଆ, please add it to this article. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haddock, it has nothing to do with the move request, which BTW we've had three or four times now. I simply noticed that the pronunciation was obviously wrong. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is in the lede, so cites are deprecated. Second, we know for a fact that it isn't a retroflex d. It is spelled with what NLK transliterates as ṛ, which is actually /ɺ̢/ as discussed above. Oriya/Odia spells retroflex d with /ḍ/. I do not support adding a native pronunciation without expert info, but certainly that previous pronunciation is obviously and without question OR that needs to be deleted. As it stands, "Odia" is being given an English pronunciation, although I actually say /ˈoʊdiə/ (IPA: [ˈoʊɽijə]), with the stress on the first syllable. Ogress smash! 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ogress, I've been pronouncing it like you do, but the dict entries I've found have the stress on the "i" for both spellings, which makes the d rendering sound less odious. We could cite if there's any actual doubt (say, people who don't know how to use a dictionary). As for the native pronunciation, the current version, [ˈoɽia] is (apart from the stress) what one would expect from Oriya alphabet. That doesn't mean it's right, of course, which is why I added a citation tag. AFAICT, the lateral flap would be ଲ ḷ, not ଡ଼ ṛ. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Kwami, the problem I was pointing out was that it was definitely not a ḍ. The current page says there is neither /ɽ/ nor /ɭ/ in the inventory; I've been looking for my copy of Masica but I have been busy and it isn't nearby. I'll try to look for it tonight to check the details on O's phonetic inventory. Ogress smash! 04:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that /ɽ/ is only marginally phonemic (it's the intervocalic allophone of /ɖ/ in many words), and thus left off the chart, while /ɭ/ is the lateral flap. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remoonline, I don't know what you mean by "it sounds like the di in India". In O, or in English? Ogress smash! 05:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: The pronunciation of "ଡ଼ି" in "ଓଡ଼ିଆ" when pronounced in native language is like the "di" in "India". I am not sure what it will map to on an IPA chart. - Remoonline (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently went through some of Maltby's A practical handbook of the Uriya or Óḍiyá language (1874). He gives "Óḍiyá" as the English name for the language which was then "ଓଡ଼ିୟା". As per the author, it was possible to acquire a good pronunciation of the language using Roman characters provided the English pronunciation is discarded and substituted with that of German or Italian. He makes a note that "ଅ" pronounced like "o" in "not" is inherent in every consonant. "ଓ" written as Ó or "ó" is pronounced long. "ଡ଼" written as "Ḍ" or "ḍ" is the cerebral or hard ḍ as in "ḍoll". "ଆ" written as "Á" or "á" is pronounced like á in father. As a native, I agree he's got the pronunciation right. "ଓଡ଼ିଆ" should be "Óḍiá". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoonline (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see "Odia" finally

[edit]

As a native speaker of the Odia language, I am very happy to see that Wikipedia has finally changed the spelling to Odia. Strangely, many users who happen to be non-native speakers had been arguing over this. "Odia" and "hateful"? This is sure funny. A word in one language may mean differently in other language. Also, the "di" in Odia is absolutely not the same as the "di" in India. From where did you get the idea? India is pronounced with the hard "d" sound, where the toungue fully touches the palate. The "di" in Odia is the retroflex sound and not the hard 'd' sound, where the toungue does not fully touch the palate. In Odia 'd', we roll the tongue. But in India 'd', we stick the tongue to the palate. It is just that the Latin alphabet is insufficient to represent all sounds. Also, in the Odia script, d is ଡ whereas r is ର which looks completely different; and the actual retroflex character is ଡ଼ which is very close to ଡ , except the dot under it. Also, no one in India says Oriya with the 'r' sound. People outside India do NOT know the language, so they followed the "wrong" spelling and pronunciation. Spelling and pronunciation mistakes are ought to be taught and corrected. For example, Español is pronounced as "espanyol", but many non-Spanish people pronounce it as "espanol". This is a mistake. Similarly, pronouncing Oriya with the hard 'r' sound is a mistake. How would you feel if I pronounce "English" as "ingliss" ? Or "Wikipedia" as "bikipedia" ? This is how many people from Odisha tend to pronounce these words due to localization. As for the internet results are concerned, the articles were written before the name had changed. People are not "interested" in "Oriya", they type because they want more results. But gradually sites are changing. Even Fedora changed it's font name Lohit-Oriya.ttf to Lohit-Odia.ttf . Car numbers from Odisha were changed from OR xxxxxx to OD xxxxxx . Odia shall gradually replace Oriya soon in the future. We need to give time. Also I was amused that when Orissa was quickly changed to Odisha, what was wrong with Odia. Odisha too had that r vs d issue, isn't it? "Orissa" had more internet articles, isn't it? Then how come there was no such argument? Isn't this hypocrisy? Now with Wikipedia changing the name, soon the English and Spanish speaking world will realise that it is actually Odia and not Oriya. And please, don't self educate yourselves regarding any language without confirming it with a native speaker. Anwesh pati (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget syntax, names etc. for now

[edit]

While I see a lot of discussion about things like whether we should use "Odia" or "Oriya" etc., I'm thoroughly disappointed in the content itself.

1. It is not comprehensive - missing many people, styles, etc. etc. 2. Even the chronology of Odia Literature seems to have been invented without any scholarly reference. 3. The content is arbitrary, opinionated, confusing and feels like a school child would have done a better job. 4. If anyone outside of Odisha reads it, I doubt she/he will have any positive view of Odia Literature. 5. I can go on and on but this is very amateurish attempt written in a hurry to satisfy someone or some institution.

The whole content should be scrapped, go to the drawing board, start from square one, outline what needs to be included, do the research, provide comprehensive views (not just one person's) and provide clear citations and references for everything Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me and I'm sure for many others who are interested and vested in Odia literature. Jajabara (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jajabara: As you can see from the top of this page, this article is considered "vital" but its quality is deemed to only be of "start" class. If you are able to improve it with reliable sources, please do so. You appear to be primarily unhappy with the Literature section. Note that the "main article" for that is over at Odia literature (and isn't particularly well-sourced either).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the article rather making it mess

[edit]

I am wondering how suddenly too much [citation needed] tags appeared in this article where as all sources given in it are reliable. They are from reputed sources of information which clearly writes the exact what Wikipedia page is saying. One would not doubt by reading them that mentioned information in the article may be wrong.Even [citation needed] tag is there where more than one citation is made. Rather than ruin an article better improve it. Diptiprakashpalai (talk) 5:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the sources given are somehow inherently unreliable, but rather that they are not quite of the "right level" for the kinds of statements being made here, an encyclopedia. So, for example, for the statement about Odia's "classical language in India" status, rather than citing a bunch of articles from popular sources like newspapers, it would be ideal to cite some sort of proceedings from the Indian government having to do with it. Though, at least one the sources given before was one I deemed undeliable (it was some translation company's website), and so I replaced the citations for that with a "citation needed" tag.
Also, as things currently stand, some parts are piecemealed together and lack necessary in-line citations in crucial places. The part about the different stages of the language is a fine example of this. For that particular section, something that explicitly treats the division of the languages's history needs to be cited.
Lastly, the tags do not "ruin" the article; they are there to explicitly identify issues that need to be resolved.
Espreon (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects and languages

[edit]

Hi,

From first glance, it seems to me like a lot of these tribal languages mentioned as dialects are not actually part of the Odia genetic macrofamily. Rather, they are tribal languages spoken IN Odisha state and I must say their inclusion has been nebulously explained (they have been described inaccurately as "mixes" of Odia and different languages, etc). While I appreciate the fact they may have been significantly influenced by Odia (I don't know) and that many contributors to this article are presumably speakers of these tongues who would like their language to be 'popularised', this is ultimately not the appropriate location to do it - these languages should be mentioned on the general Odisha page (if anywhere) and not categorised along with Odia or as part of the Odia macrofamily.

I believe that Wikipedia needs to be encyclopaedic, clear, concise, and most importantly - accurate. I am new to Wikipedia so I would like to somehow 'flag' this section for clean-up, to revert it to how it was before before all these languages were erroneously (and incongruously) included. Or perhaps, when I have time, I will be cleaning up this article myself. Just letting everybody know.

Thanks.

Apologies for any offence called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. Most of this list was added by Manjit Keshari Nayak (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago. I haven't bothered to deal with it as it's not my area. Feel free to swing the broom. However, if any of these language varieties have been seriously (or popularly) considered in the past as "dialects" of Oria, then it will be suitable to have a mention of this somewhere in the article. Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquity

[edit]

I'm removing the claim that Odia is attested in "10th Millennium B.C." and "3rd century BC Ashoka edit of Dhauli and 1st century BC Hathigumpha inscription". The Government of Odisha's publications are not acceptable sources for this claim: they have an obvious conflict of interest in proving that Odia is an 'ancient' classical language. This needs independent, peer-reviewed scholarly sources. utcursch | talk 16:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed for phonology?

[edit]

What happened with the citations for the phonology? Were they even cited? And what happened with the separate page entitled "Oriya phonology"? Does anybody have any information here? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World map

[edit]
Eastern Hemisphere in the year 200.

Is the inclusion of this map meant to tell the reader the geographic extent of the language? If so, I am somehow missing the point and feel an explanation is needed. On the face of it, the inclusion of this map is an unhelpful distraction. SpinningSpark 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although an extreme crop, limiting the image to Eastern India, might have some use - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even seeing that as useful. The map is marked with neither the people nor Orissa. Without some context in the text saying how the Odia language related in the 2nd century to the people or states marked on the map, it's just distracting decoration. SpinningSpark 18:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the language - some comments

[edit]

Hi everyone, I've been reading the previous discussions about the name of the language and I would like to share my opinion.

  1. I noticed a very common misconception, one that says "the name of the language has been changed". The name of the language, its pronunciation has not been changed at all, everyone speaking the language or working with it, pronounces it still the same. However the spelling for that pronunciation has been officially changed by the Indian government. Whether you write Oriya or Odia, the pronunciation should be the same, it's pronounced with a retroflex "r" sound. The dilemma behind "how one should spell it in English?" is a question of whether one prefers the pronounciation (Oriya) or the spelling etymologically closer in the original language (Odia). Let me elaborate:
  2. In almost all Indo-Aryan languages including Oriya, there are two sets of consonants for "t" and "d" and their aspirated versions "th" and "dh": one dental and one retroflex for each. Phonologically speaking, for a monolingual French native speaker, there is only one t and one d- a dental one (same goes for Spanish or Turkish as well). Comparatively, for a speaker of Oriya or Bengali, there are "4 t"s - /t/, /th/, /ʈ/ and /ʈh/ and "4 d"s - /d/, /dh/, /ɖ/ and /ɖh/. There are completely different letters, with different symbols on their alphabet (t, th, ṭ, ṭh, d, dh, ḍ, ḍh)
  3. In Sanskrit language there is a rule concerning the last two letters: Ḍ and Ḍh are pronounced in two different ways. The letter ḍ is pronounced like a retroflex d (/ɖ/) at the beginnig of a word, for example "ḍambaru". However it is pronounced like a retroflex r (/ɽ/) in the middle or at the end of a word, as in "āḍambara" which is pronounced "āṛambara". (Here ṛ represents the retroflex r (/ɽ/), not the vowel.) Same goes for the letter ḍh.
  4. Oriya or Odia language, as well as many languages descending from Sanskrit kept this rule. Additionally some of these languages - icluding Oriya and Bengali - for the sake of clarity of pronunciation, created extra letters by placing a dot under the original letter. So today in Oriya, the letter ଡ (ḍ) takes a dot under it and becomes ଡ଼ (ṛ) whenever it's pronounced with a "retroflex r" instead of a "retroflex d" - or whenever it occurs in the middle or at the end of a word. In Sanskrit it's the same letter (no dot under) but ଡ଼ (ṛ) is technically a different letter in Oriya, even though for native speakers it's also just a variation of the former ଡ (ḍ).
  5. Thus, I do understand the support towards the spelling Odia of some native speakers above. I think one reason behind it, is that the normal letter ର (r) in Oriya language which is very much like a Spanish single "r", is pronounced totally different than the retroflex ଡ଼ (ṛ) which is also sometimes spelled as "rh". Another reason I think is, for them ଡ଼ (ṛ) is nothing but a ଡ (ḍ) with a dot below, put to clarify pronunciation. If you wouldn't place the dot, they would still pronounce it the same - as long as it is in the middle or end of a word. (Though you have to put it for correct spelling.)
  6. However, spelling in English the name of different languages and transliterating them from source languages are two different things entirely. I personally prefer to spell Oriya in English, as it seems ridiculous to write Odia for the same pronunciation (not to mention that it looks like "odious"). The English letter "d" doesn't stand for an "r" sound. But when I transliterate a text from Oriya, then I could easily spell "Oḍiā" or "Oŕiá" depending on the transliteration rules I'm using.
  7. The change in the spelling from Oriya to Odia was - as I mentioned above - made by the Indian government. It's a political decision and it obviously influences the number of results in Google. Here in WP, I believe that we should proceed with neutrality, due weight and a balanced approach. Number of results in Google do not always reflect the actual use (To consider also that Orisha has a predominantly rural population). Moreover, in WP we should not solely decide based on a populist approach such as "Google results from last year alone compared to Google results from all times". Of course it has some importance, however those results should be considered together with other facts and factors and due weight should be given.
  8. Political decisions and officiality - Should WP reflect changes every time an administration changes something officially? Officiality of any decision will always bring some popularity afterwards. That popularity - or official decision - however is not always enough to override the natural way something is referred to. Should we change Allahabad to Prayagraj? Should we change Bosphorus Bridge to 15 July Martyrs Bridge? I believe not. Those decisions could be reverted at any point in time. Common usage dictates how we should call it, not official decisions.
  9. If Germany, together with Austria decides to change the name of the German language from Deutsch to Allemanisch. And many newspapers while writing about the change may refer to German as the Alleman language. Should we then follow suit and change the name of the German language in one year? Those changes in this hypothetical example concerns the German language, not English. Even though languages influence each other, that takes time.
  10. If I'm going to spell an "r" sound with a d in English, (for speakers of some other languages that could even be an "l" sound) then should other languages (or other language-WPs) follow suit and spell it with a "d" as well? Just my two-cents. --Universal Life (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Genders in Odia

[edit]

The article says that Odia has three genders (neuter, masculine, feminine), whilst according to Britannica, Odia —as neighboring Bengali and Assamese in Eastern India— has practically no grammatical genders, with only certain tatsama (Sanskrit loanwords) adjectives being inflected for gender, and even then with no morphological consequences for the pronoun and the verb.
Can anyone shed a light on this? Thank you. Marxolang (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that says Odia does not have grammatical gender [5]. Psanu (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from other article of wikipedia

[edit]

Spbal (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why schools are giving projects on odisha

[edit]

Can anyone answer this 2409:4042:4D38:85A7:0:0:B64A:770A (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic value of retroflex lateral

[edit]

@Fdom5997 The reference I meant is the book by Masica, given in footnote 58. I'm not sure whether it's correct, as the literature seems confused and doesn't make it very clear whether it's flap or approximant. It could be both of course. Exarchus (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct. Sources like Ray (2003) are more detailed and updated and do not list the phoneme as such. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for that, then I'll change the reference from Masica to Ray. Exarchus (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Missionaries

[edit]

I removed the "The first Odia printing typeset was cast in 1836 by Christian missionaries, making a great revolution in Odia literature and language." No citation was provided for this claim. Witchilich (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odia_language&oldid=1231753415"