Talk:Punjabi language/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Devanagari Script

@Sapedder, Anupam, DBigXray, Doug Weller, and Kautilya3:, Regarding this edit. The mention of "Devanagari" as a script used by Punjabi Hindus has been removed, but it is supported by Language in South Asia, by Braj B Kachru. The newly cited source The Indo-Aryan Languages, by Dinesh Jain, doesn't specify which religious group uses which script. It only mentions the significance of Gurmukhi and Persian script over Devanagari. Now I have 2 points to make.

• If the "Language in South Asia" source is unreliable in this particular case (as mentioned by Sapedder) then we should remove it and reword the current text, "..Shahmukhi is used mainly by Punjabi Muslims, while Gurmukhi is used by Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus..", as per the newly added "The Indo-Aryan Languages" source, without any mention of religious groups, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
  

or

• We use both sources and mention that Hindus use Devanagri script, but attribute it to the author(s).

-- Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the "Languages in South Asia" is unreliable. As per WP:NPOV, its information should be included. The Indo-Aryan Languages book is a linguists' compendium. "Languages in South Asia" is covering local/regional/ethnic issues, which might not be of much interest to linguists. So the fact that they disagree (if that is the case) doesn't mean much. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know why it's unreliable for this also, it's a Cambridge University Press book. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sapedder, can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I don't consider the "Languages in South Asia" source unreliable as a whole, but that particular statement verges on being incorrect. As you mentioned, that source deals more with regional issues while "The Indo-Aryan Languages" goes more in depth with linguistics and script use, which is why I think it should have primacy in this case. Kachru mentions script use briefly to set up a sociocultural discussion, which is where that source's nuance is focused.

Also, script use doesn't break so cleanly along religious lines. Devanagari was introduced into the Punjab region quite recently, alongside the adoption of Hindi by a sizable proportion of Punjabi Hindus, during the communal Partition era. I considered replacing the faith groups with modern "East Punjab" and "West Punjab" as I felt that was slightly more accurate (the few percent of Muslims in East Punjab use Gurmukhi, to say nothing of Hindus, and Hindus and Sikhs in the west are familiar with Perso-Arabic, as are some in older generations), but this wasn't explicitly mentioned in either source so I left the phrasing mostly as is. Devanagari wasn't even prevalent in neighboring states, which had their own scripts, until Independence when Hindi in Devanagari became official.

In Punjab state and abroad, Punjabi media output (news media, literature, entertainment, etc.) is in Gurmukhi. Devanagari-medium Punjabi output is vanishingly small if it exists at all. Devanagari is indeed found in Punjab, per the Kachru source, but not for Punjabi; mostly by urban first-language Hindi speakers and in national documents like property titles and passports (for all groups), signage, etc. as India's official script alongside the official Punjab state script Gurmukhi. The use of other non-official scripts in past decades that are still occasionally seen, albeit scarcer now, had also not been mentioned. I don't think Devanagari needs to be mentioned in the context of the Punjabi language at all, but if a nuanced discussion about its current presence in Punjab is warranted (it is certainly interesting), I would suggest possibly placing it in the Punjab, India article. Sapedder (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sapedder, I find this response full of WP:OR. Discussions on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources, not your personal knowledge.

As Doug Weller has pointed out, the Kachru volume is a Cambridge University Press book and is perfectly acceptable as a high-quality reliable source for Wikipedia. So is this Princeton University Press book

• Nayar, Baldev Raj (2015), Minority Politics in the Punjab, Princeton University Press, pp. 46–, ISBN 978-1-4008-7594-8

Anupam, please feel free to reinstate the deleted content, along with this source as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya, my main reasoning is chiefly confined to the first paragraph of my reply, what followed was simply background in the face of strictly ascribing scripts to religious backgrounds in a clean-cut, sweeping way, as the Kachru source does almost in passing, in a manner that lacked depth. If anything, this source you've just posted would back up what I said about the Partition/Independence-era communalism that drove the Hindi/Devanagari agitation and render much of what I wrote no longer OR (not that I presented it as the basis of my edit anyway), and simultaneously be problematic if it were used, as that page lists nothing but politically-driven grievances, inaccuracies and talking points that were common for the period. Non-Hindi speakers artificially adopting Hindi and Devanagari for ideological reasons, and seeing Punjabi/Gurmukhi advocacy as separatism? Check. Gurmukhi is an "artificial invention" and and a poor imitation (false, and antagonistic)? Check. Devanagari is more "scientifically suited" for Punjabi (again, false and antagonistic)? Check. The assertion that Devanagari was used before is preceded by "they say," it's just another talking point from the communal movement, not an academic statement. The source just lists the arguments that communalists used at the time and after, not objective facts to be cited. Sapedder (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The objective fact is that the Punjabi Hindus want to use Devnagari. That is all we are discussing. Communal or whatever, we couldn't care less. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of sweeping non-fact that I’ve been typing away trying to explain is inadequate, and that sources contradict. You personally have a right to not care about the partisan impulse that drives this assertion, but in that case I would not point to the words of an ill-informed bomb-thrower for evidence.

Regardless, I mentioned earlier that I considered scrapping the whole Hindu/Sikh/Muslim verbiage, possibly in favor of just mentioning official statuses and other scripts and avoiding this prickly topic. Something like, “Gurmukhi is the official script of East Punjab and Shahmukhi of West Punjab, with national and other local scripts also in use.” The term “national” would cover the Devanagari and Urdu scripts of both sides, and “local” the occasionally-seen unofficial indigenous Landa scripts scattered throughout. What say you? Sapedder (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, User:Kautilya3, and User:Fylindfotberserk, I am in agreement that the mention of Devanagari should have not been removed. Kindly draw your attention to this edit, which included the original quotation from the source which states: "Sikhs often write Punjabi in Gurmukhi, Hindus in Devanagari, and Muslims in Perso-Arabic." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how referring to one's own edit as reasoning works. The sources are exactly what we are discussing here. Offer reasoning as to why that source is preferred over the other. Sapedder (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Anupam, I too believe Devanagri should be mentioned since it is reliably sourced. The very part about the Punjabi Hindus in the text, "..while Gurmukhi is used by Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus" is WP:OR as of now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Kachru source (actually a paper by Tej Bhatia in a volume co-edited by the Kachrus) indeed contains only a passing mention, but the author had previously written a paper on script use in the Punjab ("The Gurmukhi script and other writing systems of Punjab: History, structure and identity", part of this publication, which is apparently difficult to get a copy of), so I'd assume that he knows what he's writing about and that this is isn't one of those often repeated "facts" that turn out to have no basis. However, we need to make it explicit that this is a minority use and not just leave it for the readers to infer as not all of them will be familiar with the demographic make-up of Punjab. Maybe make a reference to the "scant" use of Devanagari mentioned by Shackle (in the Jain and Cardona volume)? The Nayar paper cited above has a bit more discussion, but as far as I can see, it is about the advocacy for Devanagari, rather than about actual use. And it's from 1966 (2015 being the year of a reprint), so I don't know how relevant its conclusions will still be. How about a minimal mention along the lines of something like: The Devanagari script is also in use among the Hindu minority, some of whom have objected to the uniform official adoption of Gurmukhi in Indian Punjab. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala I believe we should re-add Devanagari, probably with the fixes suggested by you above. Currently the "Punjabi Hindus using Gurmukhi" part is OR. Any reliable sources which explicitly mentions that Punjabi Hindu use Gurmukhi? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion by Dhanesh Jain may address this concern (“Gurmukhi is written by non-Sikhs…”, the third paragraph In general) as well as describe this tendency throughout this discussion to promote this rigid, reductionist claim being talked about (not specifically directed at you) that Sikh=Gurmukhi, Hindu=Devanagari, Muslim=Arabic in a perfectly analogous relationship, as simply “the folk perception or imposition by language planners.” All in-depth analyses by Shackle, Jain etc. debunk this neat, clean little notion that downplays usage overlap and overplays non-native scripts, mentioning along with Shackle that Devanagari is mostly confined to limited use in Jammu. The sources that repeat this reductionist notion (Kachru, Austin, etc.) almost all do so in passing, in broad encyclopedia entries in Austin’s case, and frankly may be an example of something like a Woozle effect where sources simply cite other sources, perpetuating a facile statement that appears logical, but has little evidence to back itself up. The in-depth sources refute this. Using reliable sources is definitely the way to go, but a potential pitfall is when this is the only criteria, and all sources are placed uncritically on an equal footing. Let’s favor detail over these sorts of tidy conclusions.

I also support Uanfala’s fixes and I’m okay with the mention of Devanagari to that extent, and I’ve attempted to implement them by moving the religious script use discussion to the Writing Systems section to facilitate more in-depth discussion, while simply mentioning official scripts along with national and local scripts in the intro, in keeping with WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. Sapedder (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-Sikhs doesn't mean Hindus. We have to be more explicit here, if we are to mention religious groups. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Would "Sikhs and others" per the current source suffice for now? Sapedder (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably should have waited for others to comment. But since your recent edit to the lead was on administrative lines (official languages et al), it is kind of OK for me (one of the options I mentioned at the top). Only the lead part though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Fylindfotberserk, numerous other scholarly publications on the subject corroborate that text's statement. I will kindly list a few for you to examine. The Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, which is published by Elsevier 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. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Anupam Please re add Devanagari then, alongwith these new sources. Most are in favour of re adding Devanagari I believe. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fylindfotberserk, I have added the information as you requested. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The secondary sources cited so far are enough; tertiary sources like the last two should be avoided as they're not necessarily reliable for potentially contentious statements. – Uanfala (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fylindfotberserk, you can see that the image originally included all three scripts but as a result of edit warring, Devanagari was eliminated. Anupam^Talk

• I think we've now swung to the opposite extreme with these edits: Devanagari should definitely be mentioned, but I don't think it's appropriate to treat it on the same footing as Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. And also, I'd rather we use the Tej Bhatia and Nayak sources discussed above, rather than generic encyclopedias. The Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World is, for the topics it treats, no more reliable than wikipedia.Nevermind, I confused that with another one; it is actually quite reliable, but the issue remains that this is too brief a source to be useful here. – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC); corrected 21:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Devanagari’s inclusion is now entirely overstated and given false parity with Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi in the intro and infobox. The addition of it in the vocabulary chart also misses the point of the chart: to show differences in vocabulary choice, not to showcase each script, and especially not in such a misleading fashion. I still offer the option of mentioning only official scripts in the intro, along with mentioning Devanagari in the way that Uanfala describes, but perhaps solely in the Writing Systems section, and mentioning its scant usage (the Shackle source is entirely neglected now, and the Austin source that Anupam has introduced also mentions its only occasional use among Hindus). I’m also going to be honest, the Austin source also seems like it lifted much of its info right off of a past version of a Wiki page at some point, with the numbers IPA and the tones in the blue box, though blurry, looking wrong, though I realize this is a published sourced and I'm not contesting it. Sapedder (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of rewriting most of the section on scripts. I've made the text somewhat tighter, and I've done away with references to the various second-hand sources: we've got a small number of quality, relatively detailed sources that cover all the ground, so we really don't need to attempt creating a catalogue of all mentions one can find on google books. I've added a reference to the Nayar source, brought up by Kautilya3 above, as it provides good discussion of the Hindu attitudes after independence. I've removed those uses of Jain's text that support statements about Devanagari, as he talk of the script in the context of Dogri, which is not commonly taken to be a Punjabi dialect and is beyond the scope of the wikipedia article. I've added a reference to the 2016 grammar by Bhardwaj, as it has a nice discussion of the scripts, and – perhaps most controversially for those involved here – it states that most Hindus nowadays use Gurmukhi. I've removed all the quotations: I guess that's largely my personal preference (these quotes only restate what is already said in the text so add no value to readers, and I don't believe they're of much benefit to editors, as I feel they tend to discourage the actual consultation of the sources), so if anyone thinks they should be brought back, feel free. – Uanfala (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do implosive sounds exist in the Punjabi language?

^ as the title suggests.

I can’t remember where but I remember coming across a website which claimed that the Punjabi language has implosive sounds Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Punjabi proper having implosives, but neighbouring Saraiki, which is occasionally counted as a dialect of Punjabi, certainly has them – Saraiki language#Implosives. Implosives are also apparently present in the Jhangvi dialect, which is intermediate between Punjabi and Saraiki. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Is there anything official to say that Standard Punjabi (spoken by the ‘average’ Punjabi) has implosive sounds or not? Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Standard Punjabi doesn't have implosives, that's certain. You can look up any phonological description of the language, I guess. If you need something that discusses the implosives specifically in the context of Punjabi, you can try Shackle 2003. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks! Bookku (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Punjab-Pak-Sufi Poets.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do people remove reference books from a page?

I recently posted edits with supporting links for the edits and all my references material was removed. I had posted books which were fully accessible for reading and download and yet false information is being posted by deleting my edits and posting references for books which are neither accessible nor available online nor purchase able nor readable nor credible. If I cannot read the book you refer how can I know what you post is truth? You could post anything wrong and just cite a book. Avik19 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Reliable sources is relevant here. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting small help

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the related languages you know well.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Official status

Can someone confirm the official status as listed in the infobox? While not referenced in this article itself the status in the Indian states can be verified through their respective articles which cite the NCLM report. But I can't find the official status of the language in Pakistani Punjab, the reference given in the infobox is a simple census report which does not indicate the official status. I can't find a reference which confirms the official status in the Punjab, Pakistan article article as well; in fact the article itself says that the language does not have any official status: "the continued denial of any official sanction or recognition of the Punjabi language" [...] "did not take any step to implement the Punjabi language in the province." This article says the same as well: "unlike Indian Punjab [...] Punjabi itself does not have an official status".

While the NCLM reference can be cited for the Indian states, Punjab, Pakistan should probably be removed the from "Official status" param unless someone can properly cite it. Pinging @Uanfala, Kautilya3, and Fylindfotberserk: for further opinion. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. Being a "mother tongue" doesn't mean that it has an official status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope. NCLM specifically mentions the 'Offcial language' of each state. See this. For Punjab, search page no - 32 which writes The Official Language of the State is Punjabi in Gurumukhi Script.. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL, I thought it is about Indian Punjab. My bad . Yup it should be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the official status from Pakistan per above. And from what I can find only Sindhi has any official status at the provincial levels besides Urdu and English (national) in Pakistan. Gotitbro (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Under the Status heading, it states that Punjabi has provincial status in Pakistan (no citations), should that not also be deleted in this case? Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Indian Punjabi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian Punjabi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Indian Punjabi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nastaliq Script

Resolved

Mistake in Nastaleeq Font

Please correct the nastaliq font.

نعمان لہوری — Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dialects section

The dialects section is a shoddy collage of the texts of the individual dialect articles – it has excessive details that are out of place here, sfn-style refs that don't work after the copying, and no source at all for the overarching classification implied. It even includes varieties like Dogri and Saraiki that nowadays only Punjabi ethnonationalists see as dialects of Punjabi. I can't see how we can make incremental improvements on this seething mess. I'm going to remove the whole section and replace it with a link to Punjabi dialects, which contains some sort of passable-quality overview. – Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The exact same set of problems has plagued the article Punjabi dialects and languages. I did clean out all the content fork material last year and replaced it with what I believe is a passably sourced brief overview, but an editor has come up digging up the old versions and insisting on restoring them. Maybe worth keeping an eye on that article as well? – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need the same information in three articles, and the bloated stuff was way to much. We have separate articles to list where all these languages varieties are covered. To retain NPOV, we might mention in a short section that historically, "Punjabi" referred to a wider entity of varieties than today, and that this usage—although not endorsed by the central government—still has currency in some Punjabi circles (we could cite Tariq Rahman for this - btw, why tf is the abstract of his paper in JB's e-platform in German and Esperanto??) –Austronesier (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, definitely. Though there's no simple historic picture to present - even the wider meaning of "Punjabi" (as a term for a language rather than a region) is relatively recent, hardly predating the advent of the British, and even well into the 20th century it existed as merely one among many alternative language labels, both narrower ("Doabi", "Majhi") and broader ("Hindi"). I've been meaning to write a geographic overview of the region (what spoken where and under what name), but good, up-to-date, literature is surprisingly scarce and the little there is out there I can't access right now. No objections at all if anyone beats me to it. – Uanfala (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You deleted all the dialects except for Standard Punjabi. Is this cleaning or murder of dialects? - Wikisuperman007 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You definitely need to tone down your words if you want to contribute here. We have subpages for more detailed information, and it is bad style to repeat to the same stuff all over the place. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

how old is punjabi

origin of punjabi language is probably in 7 century 2402:8100:3957:85E6:5868:4ED2:C168:2E8B (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Origins/Earliest Writings?

Under Origin, it is stated that "The earliest writings in Punjabi belong to Nath Yogi era from 9th to 14th century A.D." Is this correct and are there any writings available from that time, because I was under the impression that the earliest writings were poems written by Baba Fareed? :
>> Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Transliteration needed.

Since this is English Wikipedia, it would definitely help, indeed it is essential, for the Punjabi words to be transliterated into Latin script for the benefit of people who want to know about the language without yet being able to read it. Kanjuzi (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed "not to be confused with Western Punjabi" distinguisher

As this only makes things more confusing. "Western Punjabi" is just a vague term for the use of Punjabi in Pakistan, it does not describe anything outside the scope of this page. It also makes it seem like this page is about "Eastern Punjabi," which it is not.--Middle river exports (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 2604:3D09:A17F:FC60:5048:FBF9:C4DF:924 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sahi kiya bai nu Karega tarki put Hate milugii

Sahi kiya bai nu Karega tarki put Hate milugii 2405:201:3014:200E:70:13EA:80FE:37DE (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Punjabi

What is ਸਮਝੋ ਅਤੇ ਲਿਖੋ 59.89.82.16 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Understand (imperative) and write (imperative). عُثمان (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

پنجابی IPA

@نعم البدل Re-added the Punjabi IPA pronunciation with a source, just wanted to give you the full quotation for context since it is interesting.

> The Punjabi stress rules place stress on the penultimate syllable [dʒɑ]. In most other North Indian languages such as Hindi-Urdu, a syllable with a long vowel is normally an open syllable. But a recent tendency in Punjabi pronunciation is to turn even such such open syllables into closed ones by geminating the consonant of the following syllable and grabbing half of the consonant if the consonant is a tense one and can be geminated. The name of the language is most commonly pronounced by its speakers as [pəɲˈdʒɑb.bi], and not as [pəɲˈdʒɑ.bi]

From Bhardwaj (2016). Panjabi: A comprehensive grammar. Pg 88

Anecdotally, this reflects my experience hearing the word spoken as well and what I know about general Punjabi pronunciation tendencies. (I should actually find an audio to link there if there isn't one already.) The pronounciation without the gemination at the final syllable boundary is more of an Urdu/Hindi tendency than a Punjabi one. I am actually going to add the IPA short letter marker as b̆ on the first one since if we want to get really specific the first b is half length as explained here. عُثمان (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

IPA doesn't match description of tone

In the tone section [kə˨ɾə̆] is described as high-falling; ˨ looks like low tone and I would have expected high-falling to be written something like ˥˩. [kə˦ɾə̆] is described as low-rising; ˦ looks like high tone and I would have expected low-rising to be written something like ˩˥. It seems like the rule is to take the first pitch of the tone, high or low, and then reverse it: high transcribed as low and low as high. This doesn't make sense to me and if it's intentional, the logic should be explained in the article. — Eru·tuon 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Erutuon These IPA transcriptions are just incorrect. There are other issues besides that, such as the word final vocalic release using the wrong character (it is also not necessary to include as it only manifests when a word is said on its own). Transcriptions typically also use attaching diacritics rather than separate tone letters as Punjabi only distinguishes broadly between high, level, and low. Some speakers will pronounce the high and low with a contour but it is not a factor in distinguishing words. Then the footnote about Indian vs. Pakistani dialects is entirely unsubstantiated—there is no such difference. I will redo these based on Punjabi University's print dictionary, which includes IPA transcriptions. عُثمان (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I have now updated the table and included references to the page numbers in the dictionary. I take back what I said about the significance of the vocalic release—in the context of tone, there is reason to indicate them. Since pronuncing this is not required for level tone monosyllable words, but always occurs for monosyllable high/low tone words if not followed by a word with level tone, I decided to include this in the IPA transcriptions. عُثمان (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

IAmAnEditor008 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Add the Northwestern Indo-Aryan in the language family.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Add it to where? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)