Jump to content

Talk:Punjabi language/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Edit warring

Despite the fact that User:Snow Rise closed the discussion about the scripts used to write Punjabi above, User:Babanwalia has started to edit war on this article again, many weeks after the RfC was closed. The RfC conclusion was that "Consensus is that Devanagari need not be referenced prominently as a script in the infobox, but that mention of its historical and niche uses in connection with Punjabi should be maintained somewhere in the article." I agreed to accept removal of Devanagari from the infobox but now User:Babanwalia, who was given a notice by administrator User:Mike V for canvassing several users to the RfC with a mailing list (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia/Archive), is also removing the Devanagari script from the lede of the article. Despite the fact that most of the users were canvassed to vote for removal of the script of the infobox, he got his way and now he wants to eat his cake too by removing Devanagari from the lede of the article. In my opinion, removing Devanagari from the infobox, but keeping it in the lede is a good compromise. User Banbanwalia's actions require an explanation and possible administrative action if he continues to edit war. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact that User:Snow Rise closed the discussion about the scripts used to write Punjabi above, User:Anupam has started an edit war on this article again, many weeks after the RfC was closed. The RfC conclusion was that "Consensus is that Devanagari need not be referenced prominently as a script in the infobox, but that mention of its historical and niche uses in connection with Punjabi should be maintained somewhere in the article...hope if any alterations are made they will consistent with this middle-ground solution". I agreed to keeping the mention of the niche use of Devanagri and as per the middle-ground solution there is already a mention of such use in the article and there is no need to keep it in the lead section as that would be tantamount to giving Devanagri the same privilege as the other two scripts which as the RfC maintained it doesn't enjoy. Moreover, User:Anupam has been trying to bully me by falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry cases, none of which have been proven. Such claims are unfounded and have been made to bully me and other users into accepting the views of a handful of disruptive editors. User Anupam's actions require an explanation and possible administrative action if he continues to edit war. --Babanwalia (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been weeks since the RfC closed and the RfC addressed the removal of Devanagari from the infobox, which was done in accordance with the result of the RfC. It did not address the lede and that's why no other user, besides yourself, has removed it from the lede (where it has stood in peace for weeks). If you want Devanagari removed from the lede, you must discuss your proposed changes here. You have been reverted per WP:BRD. Now it's time to explain yourself. Also, I did notice that you copied my original post, word for word, in your response. --AnupamTalk 06:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have already explained myself in the edit summaries but since you insist, here it is again:
  1. Rfc addressed this question "Should this article and its photograph in the infobox mention that Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi, and Devanagari are used to write the Punjabi language?" See? It was not just about the infobox but about the article as a whole.
  2. The conclusion of RfC was "Consensus is that Devanagari need not be referenced prominently as a script in the infobox, but that mention of its historical and niche uses in connection with Punjabi should be maintained somewhere in the article. I don't know where the current wording sits with everyone, but hope if any alterations are made they will consistent with this middle-ground solution." The mention of its historical use is being maitained in the article and as such it is not required in the first line since that would mean Devanagri is the third script of Punjabi which it is not and hence would be contrary to the position maintained by middle-ground soultion. Writing the Devanagri spelling in the first line does not maintain any mention of its historical/niche use and hence is redundant here and thus its removal from that position is well within the limits prescribed by the the conclusion.
  3. There is a lot of explanation to be had from your side too. Why are you falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/canvassing when none of your claims have been proven even after a full-fledged administrative investigation and also why are you giving out barnstars to others users like Stemoc just for sake of editing in your favour as you did here?!

Also, I did notice you are fine with besmirching my name but you're removing your name when I start a discussion about your disruptive editing and bullying. Double standards much? --Babanwalia (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) If the content in question were prose concerning the use of Devanagari, I would almost certainly agree that the consensus suggests that it need not be in the lead, anymore than it need be mentioned in the infobox. But since we are talking about the orthographic notation, the only question we should be asking ourselves is whether readers may find value in the Devanagari spelling of Punjabi -- which is quite a distinct issue from the previous (and in many respects, inverse) question of whether or not Punjabi speakers utilize Devanagari, and to what extent this is verifiable. Therefore this is very much a separate issue which may require a separate discussion. But it may also be a WP:SNOW issue, as the Manual of Style encourages liberal use of orthographic notation and it's not atypical to include a version for a number of languages (whether the subject of the article itself is a language or not). Again, note that this is a separate issue from whether or not the script is used for a given language or not. Regardless, I do think that probably Babanwalia could have foreseen this move might be contentious and that seeking to examine whether the previous consensus extended here probably would have been the best way to proceed. But I'm glad the edit summaries suggest everyone is assuming good faith and keeping matters in perspective thus far. I'd like to suggest that Devanagari notation stay (as the most recent stable version) until we've seen some policy arguments (aside from my own) for and against. Snow talk 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Snow Rise, wouldn't you agree that including Devanagri orthography here along with Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi is an attempt to legitimise its "official"ness. If including such orthographies is useful for readers, then I suggest we add orthographies in other scripts too especially other Indic scripts since readers acquainted with these scripts would find it useful to read the spellings of Punjabi in their own script. Also, why such double standards with Punjabi alone. All other language articles mention orthographies in their official/major scripts not in every script they can be or were written in, don't you think? --Babanwalia (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think the inclusion of the orthography really biases anyone as to the extent to which Devanagari is a legitimate and active script for the language. Remember that these notations are most useful to (and often noted only by) those who have cause to examine the subject within the context of the relevant language/script. And even if this were a discussion about the degree of legitimacy of the script with regard to Punjabi, note that the previous discussion did conclude some legitimacy and that just because there wasn't enough established to include mention in the infobox (or even in the lead as prose content) doesn't mean it isn't significant enough that the (far less prejudicing) orthographic notation is warranted.
Look at it this way: Anapum has reliable academic sources saying Devanagari is a major script of Punjabi and therefore (because of the wording of WP:V and it's primacy in editing on en.Wikipedia), there was a very real possibility that the previous discussion would have ended with Devanagari preserved in the infobox and otherwise more prominently, since WP:V trumps impressionistic perspectives here. That result was only avoided because a compromise solution was reached, in which an exception to this principle was made -- and I'm not sure you fully appreciate how rare that is and that opening up this can of worms again could lead to a full reversal of the former decision, with Devanagari going back into the infobox and the image. Because even though there were a number of editors supporting your case, RfC's are not decided by votes and Vigyani was the only one sharing your perspective who was arguing from policy. As to your argument that other Indic scripts should be included under the same criteria, there might be an argument to be made there, but note that this is a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and it has no bearing on whether Devanagari itself is included. Snow talk 08:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with most of the points you made but then what about the sources provided by me or other users like Guglani which state that "Punjabi has only two major/active/offcial scripts and any third one is confined to fringe usage"? How are Anupam's sources any more reliable than my sources, for instance, some of which are even governmental or government-endorsed sources and some from the Punjabi University, the equivalent of what Oxford is to English? Also if you read Guglani's reply above, he has clearly demonstrated how one of this "reliable" author Braj Kachru has refuted his own earlier version in a newer edition of the book!--Babanwalia (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If a source has refuted his own earlier position, then certainly it is his most recent perspective that we should be representing here. But in cases where sources disagree, we typically "represent the controversy" and address both sides of the argument. That was certainly basically where we were headed in the previous discussion, but the compromise solution made the point moot. In this case, obviously no one would be happy with covering the controversy in the lead, because it's not significantly important to the subject to take place there (and indeed, would only serve to emphasize the role of Devanagari, even if what were stating that some people don't view it as a significant script at all). It's kind of a everyone-loses approach to discuss the controversy there and even discussing it at all in the article is undesirable if it can be avoided (which is another reason the compromise solution worked so well). That's why I think that -- when balancing the two sides of the legitimacy debate, the entirely separate issue of the orthographic notation's usefulness (regardless of the role of the script vis-a-vis Punjabi), and the desire for text that is as simple and low-profile as possible (especially in the lead), the current wording is probably the best over-all fit. Snow talk 09:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment User:Snow Rise. I agree that User:Babanwalia "could have foreseen this move might be contentious and that seeking to examine whether the previous consensus extended here probably would have been the best way to proceed". Indeed, I found his removal of Devanagari from the lede to be quite unsettling, weeks after the article was stabilized when the RfC closed. I also concur that the Devanagari notation should stay in the lede, as it is helpful for readers, not to mention the fact that it is a good compromise (Devanagari was removed from the infobox, but Devanagari can stay in the lede). As I shared above, several sources discuss the fact that the Hindu Punjabi community writes the language in the Devanagari script:
Language in South Asia, published by Cambridge University Press and authored by Braj Kachru states:

Sikhs often write Punjabi in Gurmukhi, Hindus in Devanagari, and Muslims in Perso-Arabic.

The Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, which is published by Elsevier likewise states:

Punjabi is written primarily in three scripts: Gurmukhi, Perso-Arabic, and Devanagari. Sikhs often write Punjabi in Gurmukhi, Hindus in Devanagari, and Muslims in Perso-Arabic-called Shahmukhi.

Similarly, Professor Peter Austin in the text One Thousand Languages (published by the University of California Press) states:

Three main scripts are used to write Punjabi: the Brahmi-derived Gurmukhi and Devanagari, and a Perso-Arabic script known as Shahmukhi.

These academic publications all confirm the fact that the Punjabi language is primarily written in three scripts (Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi and Devanagari) by three religious communities (Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus). It is for this reason that the three should appear in the lede, especially after Devanagari was removed from the infobox. I should also note that in addition, despite being warned about canvassing, User:Babanwalia has once again posted a "Help needed" thread on a user who might share his view. I suspect that even though honest editors here might try to work something out, User:Babanwalia will continue to invite other users here to push his POV in order to eventually achieve his goals. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, well, let's keep things in perspective. I said that I thought Babanwalia probably should have sought consensus before acting unilaterally on this, but that's very different from saying that I think he was trying to do an end-run around consensus. I hope you'll both pause a minute to consider the value of WP:AGF as this discussion proceeds, so that we can avoid this discussion getting as divisive as the last one. I will say that you are right about the canvassing, though. Normally Babanwalia would be perfectly within his rights to draw Vigyani's attention here, since he was a party to the previous (and connected) discussion (and was a useful voice who made every reasonable effort to bridge the perspectives of the two sides, allowing the result of the compromise solution), but his (Babanwalia's) wording in that post leaves no doubt at all that he was trying specifically to recruit support for his position, which is not allowed -- previous involvement of the prospective recruit or not. I hope Babanwalia will take me seriously when I say that further efforts of this nature will probably result in administrative action by someone. As to the actual content issue, I am fairly convinced that the practical use of this orthographic reference, because the question in this case isn't whether Punjabi speakers use Devanagari, but whether Devanagari users have sufficiently common cause to reference the Punjabi language, and I think the answer to that must be a definite yes. But do note that you're references are only tangentially related to that issue, so we needn't recycle that old debate. And Babanwalia does have some points on this issue which need addressing, which I shall I do above, shortly. Snow talk 08:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked for Vigyani's help against the bullying done by Anupam. In the end, I asked for his "own" views and not anything supporting my POV. So, how can I be recruiting if I am asking for his own views?! I did this because he was the one who made edits after the RfC was closed and seemed wise enough to do that in a neutral manner because no objections were raised on his intentions either in the RfC or in the sockpuppetry investigation against me i.e. his edits seemed to be respected by both the parties. I would suggest to take a look at my message again and I also apologise if it seems to be pointing towards any ulterior motive which was not my intention to begin with. --Babanwalia (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well it was the fact that you framed the request as one of assistance and your use of the word "intervene" that, to me anyway, pushed the comment into the territory of canvassing. But I will certainly take you at your word that no bad-faith effort to unduly influence the outcome of this discussion was at work. In any event, I see no reason to dwell upon the issue, especially given Vigyani has previously demonstrated here that he puts policy arguments above more personal impressionistic ones. Snow talk 08:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note: This page is on my watchlist and I had seen the changemade by Babanwalia and subsequent revert by Anupam. I wanted to intervene myself (before Baban's message) but couldn't do as I was busy. I will comment later when I get some free time. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
How about we apply WP:INDICSCRIPT and remove all the indic scripts from the lead sentence, since IPA is already present. That will solve the problem. "Which script to use, how many scripts to be used" debates have already wasted lot of time in India-related articles. WP:INDICSCRIPT was created for preciously to end these kind of debates. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, looking at the manual of style subpage for India-related articles, that standard is actually not included (though nothing in the MoS page specifically conflicts with it either). It seems that regarding the rule you site that it was only introduced by a WikiProject-hosted RfC, but no policy change (which requires much broader community consensus, even in the case of an MoS subpage). There have actually been a great number of times where select groups of editors at particular Wikiprojects have tried to establish "policy" specific to their domains, but this is not how policy is made. To have a binding decision, you need to bring the matter to relevant policy (or in this case, MoS) talk page and seek broad community involvement in the final decision, which seems not to have been done in this case.
None of which precludes us from applying this principle here, however. I will say that it seems a little bit to be putting the cart before the horse, as orthographic notations are ubiquitous across Wikipedia and strongly encouraged by the MoS proper. However, if the compromise will be received by both sides as a practical work-around to the difference in perception that is the sticking point of this issue, I'll support it. With regard to my initial comments, I just want to be sure we're clear as to why we are doing it, lest we be basing our decision on something that won't withstand policy scrutiny. Snow talk 11:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Punjabi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History

This is the history section from Western Panjabi, which is a content fork of the history section here. I didn't know which version to keep, so I'm pasting it here. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi emerged as an independent language in the 11th century in areas of Greater Punjab, literary tradition can be traced back with the Muslim Sufi poet named Fariduddin Ganjshakar (Baba Farid) (1173–1266), and later followed by many other ancient Muslim Sufis. The early Punjabi literature was principally spiritual in nature and has had a very rich oral tradition. The poetry written by Muslim Sufi poets has been the folklore of the Punjab, and is still sung with great passion in both Indian and Pakistan Punjab.

Between 1600 and 1850, many famous works was written in Punjabi. The most famous Punjabi Sufi poet was Baba Bulleh Shah (1680–1757), who wrote in the famous ry that gives an eyewitness account of the First Anglo-Sikh War that took place after the death of [[Ranjit Singh|Maharaja Ranjit SinghKafi style. Bulleh Shah practiced the Sufi tradition of Punjabi poetry established by poets like Shah Hussain (1538–1599), Sultan Bahu (1629–1691), and Shah Sharaf (1640–1724). His lifespan also overlapped with the legendary Punjabi poet Waris Shah (1722–1798), of Heer Ranjha fame. Waris Shah's rendition of the tragic love story of Heer Ranjha is among the most popular medieval Punjabi works. Other popular tragic love stories are Sohni Mahiwal, Mirza Sahiba and Sassi Punnun. Shah Mohammad's Jangnama is another fine piece of poet]].

The linguist George Abraham Grierson in his multivolume Linguistic Survey of India (1904–1928) used the word "Punjabi" to refer to several languages spoken in the Punjab region of British India: the term Western Punjabi (ISO 639-3 pnb) back then covered dialects (now designated separate languages) spoken to the west of Montgomery and Gujranwala districts in Pakistan, while "Eastern Punjabi" referred to what is now based more on Hindi and simply called Punjabi (ISO 639-3 pan)[1] After Saraiki, Potwari and Hindko (earlier categorized as "Western Punjabi") started to be counted as separate languages, the percentage of Pakistanis recorded as Western Punjabi or simply Punjabi speakers was reduced from 59% to 44%. Although not an official language in Pakistan Punjab, Punjabi is still the predominant language of Pakistan Punjab.

After the partition of the Punjab region, the region was divided between Pakistan and India. Although the Punjabi people formed the 2nd biggest linguistic group in Pakistan after Bengali (former East Pakistanis), Urdu was declared the national language of Pakistan, and Punjabi did not get any official status and no official support since 1947.

In India, Urdu language was removed as the national language and exchanged with Modern Hindi language, which have decreased Urdu loan words in Punjabi language used in India. In the 1960s, the Shiromani Akali Dal proposed "Punjabi Suba", a state for Punjabi speakers in India. Paul R. Brass, the Professor Emeritus of Political Science and South Asian Studies at the University of Washington, opines that the Sikh leader Fateh Singh tactically stressed the linguistic basis of the demand, while downplaying the religious basis for the demand—a state where the distinct Sikh identity could be preserved.See Brass, Paul R. (2005). Language, Religion and Politics in North India. iUniverse. p. 326. ISBN 978-0-595-34394-2. The movement for a Punjabi Suba led to trifurcation of Indian Punjab into three states: Punjab (India), Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

Modern Punjabi

Modern Punjabi consists of several dialects and is rich in their use in Punjab. Majhi (Standard Punjabi) is the written standard for Punjabi in both parts of Punjab. Compared to Indian Punjabi, the Punjabi language in Pakistan has been able to keep its original form by keeping its close relationship with Urdu language, although some traditionally used non-Urdu words have decreased in modern day spoken Punjabi in Pakistan. In addition, recent modernization and industrialization has witnessed an English influence in both parts of Punjab, as Punjab has undergone Science and Technology development. "Modern Punjabi" uses Gurmukhi [from the mouth of the Gurus] script in the Indian Punjab, which is specifically developed for the Punjabi language. Pakistani Punjabis, however, uses the elder Shahmukhi [from the mouth of the Kings] script, which is a modified Persian-Nasta’liq script. These two scripts are considered the official scripts of the Punjabi language. In India, Punjabi is one of the 22 languages with official status in India. It is the first official language of Punjab (India). In Pakistan, even though Punjabi has no official status, it is still the most spoken language and in Pakistan. Punjab is the second largest and the most populous province of Pakistan.

(end)

Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu mutual intelligibility: I think mentioning the mutual intelligibility between Punjabi and Hindi/Urdu would be interessing. In many ocasions, I have witnessed that, Hindi and Punjabi speakers seem to understand each other, without knowing the languge of their counterpart. I mean both languages belong to the Sauraseni language, and after all, they are sister languages. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Punjabi-Hindi-are-sisters-born-out-of-Sanskrit/articleshow/7543865.cms

Even ovrsea Punjabi's seem to understand Hindi, they might not be able to speak it, but they do understand it. I think you could compare the languages with italian&spanisch. And know and then every oversea Punjabi is exposed to the Hindi Zee tv at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.77.179 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Filpro to note about compromise solution in Rfc

@Filpro and Snow Rise:Before contesting , Please note it is is written in white box, on archived Rfc, and should not make disruptive edits about devnagri.--Guglani (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit as a phylum

Filpro (talk · contribs) has just added a node to the family tree that makes it appear as though Punjabi is subsumed within Sanskrit. I'm not sure I see the point of it: after all, Sanskrit is an ancient language and not a language grouping. Uanfala (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The same is done on the Hindi article as Sanskrit is believed to be a direct ancestor of the the modern Indo-Aryan languages. Although, it is definitely not a language family. Sorry for the confusion. Filpro (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
But that part of the infobox is meant to display the classification, not the ancestry. Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Undone. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Punjabi official language where?

I have removed punjabi as an official language in Pakistan. As far as my research is concerned, the official languages in Pakistan Punjab are Urdu and English. Please provide me with information, if this is not correct. Cheers everyone. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolrsa (talk • contribs) 11:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Urdu is officially regulated in Pakistan, as it is the transient language necessary to allow the many different ethnic groups of Pakistan to communicate, it is endorsed and therefore considered 'Official.' Regardless, Punjabi remains the dominant language of Pakistan and taught among the largest ethnic group of Pakistan, the Punjabis. If you are looking for an official endorsement, you will not find it, as Pakistani government delicately only endorses Urdu as one language for all ethnic groups, as to not upset any of them, although majority of them are ethnic Punjabis. Languages are official only at the national level, but Punjabi is considered official at the provincial level (if there were official regulators at the provincial level, then it would officially be 'official'), as in Punjab, Pakistan it is taught in the rural and urban areas. 11:48, 21 September 2011

Does Punjabi really have official status in Pakistan? The claim above seems dubious to me. From what I know, only Urdu and English are talk in schools in Pakistani Punjab, unlike Sindh and other provinces which also teach the regional languages. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed Punjabi from official language of Chandigarh. Refer Talk:Chandigarh for details. •nix• 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.narinder (talk • contribs)

Info is outdated. According to this article, Punjabi was recently given official status. You have to scroll down to the relevant article. [1] -Myopia123 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


Sorry i have to agtee. There is no real official use of punjabi in Pakistan. In Sindh and KPK they have their own languages in school. In pk Punjab this is not the case. And nowhere it is written or spoken officially in pk. Please remove official status as it gives the impression it is used officially like in India, where it is both written and spoken officially in the mentioned status. It is wrong to give false informations to someone who does not know reality. I oppose. It mus be changes so it is clear that status in pakistan is not the same as in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.246.214 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In Pakistan Punjabi is spoken mostly in villages and elderly population. But fact is that everyone reads Urdu , watch TV urdu, go to school Urdu and English and same with jobs, and all boards and signs and everything is in Urdu and/or English. PUNJABI is not taught in schools like in KPK pashto and Sindh sindhi etc. Please remove official status in Pakistan, as it gives false information which this moderator is misleading people, thinking Punjabi has same official status as it has in India. I am not saying it is wrong to not use Punjabi officially in Pakistan, it is their choice not to learn punjabi in schools, but we must not give false information to people reading about punjabi, thinking it is same way official in both contries. Ask any punjabi if they read Punjabi or are taught Punjabi in schools, they will say NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.16.143 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Glottolog and ISO

@Kwamikagami: those Glottolog and ISO codes are for Eastern Punjabi. There is no "Punjabi" one. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

For ISO, that's why we don't have a one-to-one correspondence. You're right that the Glotto code needs to be fixed, though. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Western Punjabi and Lahnda

Please comment at Talk:Western Punjabi#Proper topic of article. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RECENT EDITS MADE BY ME

I have made edits in this article, plz do not revert or change because i did not write extra any thing,i have just rearranged material already available on wikipedia like hotos etc and i have just wrote the matrial available in this article.plz donot revert Shemaroo (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Punjabi is my mother tongue

i know Punjabi very well ,then do not revert without checking facts.116.202.249.83 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Being your mother tongue doesn't matter here, we go by what reliable sources say, not by what people claim they know. The material you re-added had been removed for a reason (see page history) so don't add it back again. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

punjabi AND its issues with other dialects or Languages

It should be clear that punjabi is spoken in India and Pakistan means two different socio-cultural-political environments,mr UNFALA trying to mix these two different conditions,

1 In article readers have right to know about Dogri and Seraiki in detail to know what developments took in history and i have written with sources. 

2 MR Unfala why you want delete map here,it clears the section 'frontier dialects' issue'.please go through map ,it show you historical punjab and nothing negative written about claims or constitutional provisions about Dogri and Seraiki.then why you deleting facts based on souurces.

3 About video :- video is shoot in India ,where Bahawlpuri or Multani people identify yhem as Punjabi, in video the girl herself calling BAHAWALPURI THEN HOW MR UNFALA you can link this video only with seraiki? 

please understand Punjabi regarding India and Pakistani perspectives based on government facts.Shemaroo (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Re 1 & 3: very well, but that's beyond the scope of this article. Re 2: the map is misleading as it looks like a language map, but in fact shows something unrelated and irrelevant – the extent of the Raj-era province of Punjab. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've removed the whole section that was added a few months ago. Large parts of it are directly copied from elsewhere on wikipedia (most noticeably Saraiki dialect). The copied text contains {{sfn}} references, but as the corresponding bibliography items weren't copied along, these references are now broken. Besides, much of that is anyway beyond the scope of the current article. The bits that don't seem to have been copied from other articles, although not always dubious, are sourced to online news times, which (aside from the WP:RS issues) turn out not to support the statements they're used as sources for (disclaimer: I've only checked four of them, but given that none of them passed verification, I'm not hopeful for the remainder). 15:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs)

The Punjabi in (Republic of) India section

There are multiple issues with this section. First several citations make no sense, for example the line, "There is Hindi imposition since 1950s and 1960s in state against Punjabi language." cites an article from an online magazine, and that article is about climate change. The other article cited provides no support to this claim either. Second, a claim is made that Chandigarh, Haryana and Rajasthan among others are 'Punjabi majority areas', which is false, and can be easily discredited by looking at the language statistics from the Indian census. Third, a claim is made that Punjabi language TV shows 'have totally disappeared', again citing a news article. But the article says that the decline of TV in Punjabi has been accompanied by a growth in Punjabi movie viewership. This context is not given.

In general, this section lacks scholarly sources, and relies heavily on journalistic ones. It needs a substantial clean up with the patently false claims removed, and the citations improved. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment -- I've removed the most glaring fake ref. I wouldn't hesitate in removing the other ones either. Other sections in the article also seem to be poorly-sourced. utcursch | talk 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I hunted around for a good academic references, and found a couple. This one especially is very comprehensive, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/4600/1/02Khokhlova.pdf This one is also relevant in the context of revival movements, https://alyssaayres.com/pdf/Ayres-JAS-Language-Nation.pdf I think this section can be reorganized as follows, first para with official status details in India (8th schedule, sole official status in state of Punjab, second official status in Haryana and Delhi etc). Second para can have details on education policy, compulsory in Punjab, three language formula, education in other states etc. Final para can talk about contemporary attitudes, Hindu-Sikh attitudes towards the language, movie, music and TV industry details. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Punjabi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjabi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjabi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RECENT EDITS MADE BY ME

I have made edits in this article, plz do not revert or change because i did not write extra any thing,i have just rearranged material already available on wikipedia like hotos etc and i have just wrote the matrial available in this article.plz donot revert Shemaroo (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WRT the description of the origins of Punjabi, I changed "degenerated form" to "descendent of". A linguistic description is no place for claims about language degeneration. Mcswell (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punjabi language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of Changes I Just Made

I just made edits to the page, but overall it's a minor edit.

1. Originally the page read "...historical Punjab region of India and Pakistan." That is incorrect because the historical Punjab region was never *of* India or Pakistan, that wasn't even possible. When India and Pakistan came into existence, Punjab got split up into the two countries, hence, I added a link to the partition of Punjab for important historical context.

2. None of the other things I did changes the substance of what existed on the page originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeepSaluja (talk • contribs) 06:03, 09 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource

From the history of the article:

  • 15:44, 15 October 2018‎ PBS (→‎External links: * "Panjabi" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). 1911. p. 679.)
  • 15:50, 15 October 2018‎ Uanfala (Undid revision 864173863 by PBS (talk) thanks, but we wouldn't want to link to EB's stub article even if it weren't so outdated) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

@user:Uanfala who is "we"? -- PBS (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping "we" would be you and me, and everyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EB article is only a pagraph long and is at a fraction of the level of detail of the lede of wikipedia's article. The first criterion of WP:ELNO is what I have in mind here. Besides, there isn't a single sentence of this that nowadays could be considered true in any meaningful way. – Uanfala (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
That was presumptuous of you as it implies that I do not know my own mind (as I had put the link there only six minutes before you removed it). For those of you reading this section and have not looked at the edit history—I placed the link into external links so we are not discussing a citation. The point about including link to EB1911 articles in the external links section when there is an article on it on Wikisource, and it is not use as a citation adds information to a Wikipedia article that is not included in the main body of the article.
  1. The topic was of encyclopaedic interest a century ago to the "English-speaking peoples".
  2. The length of an article in EB1911 indicates the relative interest of the subject 100 years ago (the term stub is inappropriate, as that implies a Wikipedia editorial judgement about articles on Wikipedia). Also in this specific case there are to mentions (linked) in the EB1911 article to two other articles. So there is considerably more on Punjabi than is included in the EB1911 Panjabi article (think of it as the EB1911 equivalent of a Wikipedia summary style article.
  3. it is an invitation to those who do not know that there is information about the topic on a sister wiki. This is a reason why millions of articles on Wikipdia have links to sister projects, and I fail to see why this article must be an exception.
So in summary the inclusion of this link informs readers that this is a long standing topic of interest and an invitation to read further information on a sister wiki, neither of which is mentioned elsewhere in the article -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If an external link fails the most basic criterion of the external link guidelines, then it doesn't matter whether it's hosted by a sister project. That's not something exceptional to this article, it's how the encyclopedia works. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought I had explained why it does not fail the external links guideline (which is after all only a guideline and not a policy). I am disappointed that you did not reply to my specific points but mealy repeated your first argument about WP:ELNO Lets go into it in more detail about that. The first point (the one you emphasised in your first posting), is specifically about "Any site that does not provide a unique...". (my emphasis on site). Your interpretation of that bullet point is contradicted by the bullet point that immediately proceeds it (see section WP:ELMAYBE (point 5). Not only is it contradicted by that, it is also contradicted by common practise (just have a look at how common for example {{commons cat}} is in external links sections. See also Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers," and the section "Where to place links". -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A commons category is likely to contain a lot more images that the ones included in the article, and a wikivoyage page by definition contains content that isn't, and can't, be featured here. Such links are included because they add something that is not – and cannot – already be present in the article. This is not the case for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, and the fact that it is hosted on wikisource does not change this state of affairs. Just because something is on a sister project does not give it a free ticket to being spammed across wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, this really isn't the place for such a discussion. I've started one at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911), please comment there. – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the content of this article. "free ticket to being spammed across wikipedia" what does that mean? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ਲ਼

The article currently lists ਲ਼ as ɻ, the retroflex approximant. This is the same consonant as ழ் in Tamil, usually written in Devanagari as ऴ.

However, the document it cites (The Indo-Aryan Languages by Colin P Masica, Section 5.3.3 Laterals and Flaps), which lists it as a retroflex lateral flap

A retroflex flapped lateral /ḷ/, contrasting with ordinary /l/, is a prominent fe ature of Oriya, Marathi-Konkani, Gujarati, most varieties of Rajasthani and Bhili, Punjabi, some dialects of "Lahnda" (Bahri 1963: 135-6, 143-5), most dialects of West Pahari, and Kumauni (not in the Southeastern dialect described by Apte and Pattanayak), as well as Hariyanvi and the Saharanpur subdialect of Northwestern Kauravi ("Vernacular Hindustani") investigated by Gumperz. It is absent from most other NIA languages, including most Hindi dialects, Nepali, . Garhwali, Bengali, Assamese, Kashmiri and other Dardic languages (except for the Dras dialect of Shina and possibly Khowar), the westernmost West Pahari dialects bordering Dardic (Bhalesi, Khashali, Rudhari, Padari) as well as the easternmost (Jaunsari, Sirmauri), and from Sindhi, Kacchi, and Siraiki. It was once present in Sinhalese, but in the modern language has merged with /l/.


(This quote also exists on Retroflex lateral flap)


Furthermore, Retroflex lateral approximant lists Punjabi as an example with ਲ਼ for the word ਤ੍ਰੇਲ਼.

In most indic languages the retroflex lateral flap (ɭ̆) and retroflex lateral approximant (ɭ) are somewhat allophonic (sometimes in a context-sensitive fashion), so in this case it's probably equally ɭ̆ and ɭ.

"The Sounds of the World's Languages" (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996) (page 190-191) describes the consonant as an apical post-alveolar lateral approximant (as opposed to a flap). While it's not explicitly described as *not* a flap, it's described under the "Voiced Lateral Approximants" section rather than the section for taps and flaps.
n.b. even though it's described as apical post-alveolar, Indo-Aryan linguistic convention nearly always marks these as "retroflex", so leaving it as a retroflex symbol is fine.
Iwsfutcmd (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that the cited source disagrees with the text I'm going to go ahead and make the edit to replace it with ɭ, but I wanted to be able to document this in long form, hence this talk page message. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 21:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

http://www.cle.org.pk/Publication/Crulp_report/CR03_01E.pdf seems to say "That means that /ਲ਼/ is not a retroflexed stop or flap, as was predicted by Masica. The air keeps on flowing so it can be considered some sort of approximant", however the Gurumukhi letters in the document are all broken so I'm reluctant to cite that. I would like to add a note about the flap vs approximant debate, however, so I may look for a different source. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/3350695/SAMPA_for_Hindi_and_Punjabi_based_on_their_Acoustic_and_Phonetic_characteristics is another source for it being ɭ ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 22:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your edit, fwiw. Maybe a case can be made for the flap and approximant occurring in free variation, and it can be noted, but it's good as it is I think. Sapedder (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pure Punjabi

Where is speaking Pure Punjabi Pgrewal734 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Qāf

User:Sapedder, please do not remove qāf from the table; this is a standard letter in the Shahmukhi alphabet and is used in many Punjabi words. In Shahmukhi, one cannot write words such as the Punjabi word for "fort" قلا qila as کلا kila, though this commonly occurs when people write this word Gurmukhi. Since the Shahmukhi letter has been added, I added the Gurmukhi equivalent. You will find that Omniglot also includes this letter in its article about the Punjabi language, providing ਕ਼ as the equivalent of ق. This article is about the Punjabi langauge as a whole, which includes its most prevalent script, Shahmukhi, keeping in mind the fact that most Punjabi speakers reside in Pakistan. Please do not remove it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Anupam, you should have made this a separate section.
Regardless, this section is about Phonology, not the alphabet. /q/ does not have phonemic status in Punjabi, this is academically sourced. The presence of ق qaf reflects the etymology from Arabic but does not translate to Punjabi having this sound; Shahmukhi also utilizes letters symbolizing ayn ع, the emphatic consonants ح ط ص ض ظ, and other sounds like /θ/ and /ð/, but Punjabi does not have these sounds either. Please understand the difference, and please don't blank sources.
ਕ਼ is also not an official part of the Gurmukhi alphabet as of currently, per most East Punjabi academic institutions. Check your own source Omniglot, which does not use it in the Gurmukhi section (it's not a scholarly source anyway, it revolves around user submissions. you or I could have had it added), and is confined to very limited unofficial use when transliterating Urdu, and even then rarely. For example, a quick Google search shows “ਕ਼” yields less than 5000 results by itself, and your word qila “ਕ਼ਿਲਾ” yields less than 1500, and none in any official publications, for example.
And let's not resort to pissing contests about "more speakers." The term "Shahmukhi" did not exist prior to the Partition era and most people were illiterate a century ago at any rate; shoehorning Punjabi into an Arabic script does not make it "more right" because more (not most) people did it. Sapedder (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
From a young age, Punjabi speakers in Pakistan learn how to pronounce /q/ (ق) and this is a different sound than /k/ (ک). There are a larger number of loanwords from Persian within Punjabi as spoken in Pakistan and many words in Punjabi start with ق. Many Indian Punjabi speakers do not pronounce this sound (nor use the bindi), along with /z x ɣ/, and that is the reason that ਕ਼ does not yield a vast number of Google results (although it is included in transliteration-related articles, such as this one). However, in Pakistani Punjab, these sounds are standard despite education level. For this reason, it should be included within the article. As such, please do not revert. Perhaps User:Mar4d and User:BukhariSaeed could offer their insight here. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You’ll have to provide proper sources, not anecdotes, for this sweeping claim. Omniglot is not a scholarly source, neither is a proposal to encode in Unicode (non-standard characters are encoded all the time) and you have repeatedly deleted proper sources that contradict your view. These gutteral sounds that are foreign to Punjabi are also marked in parentheses per the Jain/Cardona academic source as being marginal phonemes resulting from Urdu contact; you are the one who needs to offer a reliable source stating that they are not marginal; we are talking about phonology not alphabet. Sapedder (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I haven't removed any references; if you look at the edits, I simply reverted your deletions and restored the references you added. I don't mind the paragraphs you added. I do object to your deletion of qaaf. Let's wait to hear what other editors have to say on this matter. As a compromise, I would agree to your restoration of parenthesis if you leave qaaf intact in the table. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've parenthesized the five phonemes pending the outcome. Sapedder (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If you're fine with the status quo as is, we can go ahead and close this discussion. If not, we can await further input. Let me know! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We should leave it open for now, I would still like a clear, academic source for this, and maybe outside input. I feel that a resolution is close though. Sapedder (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the recently added mention of /q/ as a phoneme. In principle, I'm not opposed to the idea (which most find heretical) of accepting unsourced content provided good-faith editors with first-hand experience are ready to vouch for it, but there's no way this can happen here. Punjabi is spoken by tens of millions, so there's nothing to guarantee that the experience of any number of wikipedia editors is representative, and its phonology is such a well-researched area that if /q/ is indeed distinguished by any significant proportion of these speakers then there's bound to be mention of it in the literature. I haven't dug deep at all, but what I'm finding doesn't look promising: see this recent paper about the variety of Punjabi spoken in Faisalabad, it doesn't mention /q/ (though it does list x, ɣ, f, v, and z as contrastive for some speakers). And there's Shackle's classic 2003 chapter (in Cardona and Jain's volume) cited in the article, which explicitly states, on p. 590, that "q is absent even from the Urdu of educated Panjabi speakers". Of course, it maybe that things have changed since Shackle's time, but even if this is the case we'll need a very solid new source. – Uanfala (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is basically how I also see it. I have not been able to locate any source for this, and it seems Uanfala has found a source statement flatly stating the contrary. I am also admittedly not stringent about sourcing if something sounds right, and anecdotes should be avoided (though I think Anupam’s edit was in good faith), but if it jived at all with my experience I may have entertained leaving it; it just doesn’t in any capacity (in the eastern half, /ʃ/ and possibly /f/ are completely nativized with /z/ not too far behind, /x/ and /ɣ/ far less so but still present in careful Perso-Arabic-influenced speech, but I’ve never heard /q/ in either half’s casual speech. The other phonemes are sourced as well; I think the explicit denial of /q/ by Shackle settles this. Sapedder (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Shackle 1970:240
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punjabi_language/Archive_3&oldid=1136238482"