Talk:Shina language

A Grammar of the Shina Language of Indus Kohistan  By Ruth Laila Schmidt, Razval Kohistānī

http://books.google.com/books?id=mZzD86umtbAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Shina is written with arabic script

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3tAqIU0dPsC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Shina use of Devanagri

Is there any better source that asserts the Shina actually use Devanagri? Omniglot.com isn't a scholarly source, and it would be extremely unusual for a Muslim ethnic group in Pakistan to use Devanagri script. The user re-inserting this information once stated Washington Post isn't a reliable source. Regardless, are there any first hand accounts of its use by the Shina? Any examples of its use? Any better source? What is stated on Omniglot.com defies usual convention for Muslim ethnic groups to use perso-arabic scripts in this part of the subcontinent. Willard84 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. Omniglot's entry is sourced to a text that only proposes a Devanagari scheme. This could be mentioned somewhere in the article body, but shouldn't be inserted into the infobox unless there's evidence of actual use. The bit in the infobox appeared to have also been sourced to the chapter in Cardona's book. I don't have access to it at the moment, and I'm wondering if it was just a source for the usage of the Arabic script, or did it also mention Devanagari? – Uanfala 22:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a a number of claims in your comment that invalidate your overall argument. One such claim is that the Shina are a Muslim ethnic group living in Pakistan but there are a significant amount of the Shina that are living in India and are not Muslim. Those speaking the Brokskat dialect of Shina, for example, are mostly Buddhist as also shown by the Ethnologue source. The Omniglot encyclopedia is published by linguist Simon Ager, clearly a reliable source. It is evident that there is use of Devanagari script to write the Shina language. And if we talk about writing system for the language, the Perso-Arabic script was also proposed as a scheme, alongside with Devanagari, because up until recently Shina had no writing system.[1][2] So you need to tell what are your reasons to remove it. I have seen that you have removed another Devanagari script on this article. Capitals00 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Capitals00. Shina is also used by Indian Muslim people. So, not to remove Devanagari. - Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You've embellished a weak argument that is still fundamentally weak despite your bombastic tone. Firstly, pointing to a tiny Buddhist minority in no way invalidates my point. You likely came to this assertion from the Wikipedia article on the Shina people which says that "Other Shina people, such as those residing in Dah Hanu, continue to practice Buddhism." If we delve a bit further, we see that the villages are actually inhabited by the Brokpa people, who speak their own language, Brokskat. Here we can see that Brokstat is NOT a dialect of Shina], but is a "Shinaic" language. Shina and Brokstat are listed as two separate Shinaic languages. And this source states that they use the Balti script, and that Brokstat is "A very divergent variety of Shina." Thus the language is noted to be "very divergent," while their writing system is Balti script. I see nothing about Devanagri.

There is no evidence to suggest that these Buddhists use Devanagri for their Brokstat language, and we see that they in fact use Balti script. But IF devanagri is used (and thats a big "if""), it is almost certainly used exclusively for Brokstat, not Shina over all. If you can demonstrate that they use Devanagri, then you should include it on the page for that tiny minority dialect, not the Shina language overall.

Which brings us to your second point: the reliability of the source, as pointed out by @Uanfala:. I wish you had actually read the "reliable sources' page you referenced because you'll see that you've actually invalidated your own argument that it is a"clearly reliable." Self-Published articles are of questionable reliability as per that page, so it doesnt matter who this random linguist is that you insinuate is eminent with zero evidence. So I dont know how you can so confidently assert that it is a "clearly reliable source" when the evidence you yourself point to argues against that point. That is why I remove it - you are using fundamentally weak sources. Your last attempt to provide a source demonstrates this: you thought that initial source was good enough, even though all it mentioned was the work of Rajapurohit in 1983, which you then simply found rehashed in another source in an attempt to make it seem like your point is supported by multiple sources (see next paragraph), which it is not. Your only source so far that Devanagri is actually used among the Shina is based upon a self-published site.

Your Cordona source on page 823-824 also notes that Rajapurohit in 1983 proposed a scheme for Devanagri use. You can't just re-use the same information from a different source, because its still a proposal. Your citation claims support from page 947 of that book, but we can see here that page has NOTHING to do with Shina, and is instead deals with syntactic constructions within the Kashmiri language! In fact, the ONLY mention of Shina orthography is on page 823-824, and it clearly mentions a Devanagri proposal, as Uanfala had pointed out. You shouldn't include sources that dont actually support what you say, as it creates a false illusion that your assertions are backed by more sources than they really are.

In fact, could you point to a single piece of work in the Shina language that is written in Devanagri? Because you so confidently assert that it is "evident that there is use of Devanagari script to write the Shina language." Please at least show us an example of this before making such claims. Since its so evident, surely you can provide an example, right? Can you point to the actual use of Devanagri amongst the Shina? I doubt you can, but I'd be most interested in this information.

Whereas you point to a self-published article, here we at least have a published book stating that the language is sporadically written in the Arabic script. When it comes to reliable sources, published by University of California > self-published.

Extraneous arguments: 1) The lack of Shina orthography was not in question, and is largely irrelevant and is just an attempt to fluff up your argument. What we are talking about is what is the situation now. And if Shina wasn't written down until recently (as per your sources), what makes you think these two tiny villages adopted Devanagri? Ethnologue.com states that the Brokpa use Balti script. 2) The Aksai Chin article refers to a Chinese controlled territory, and even if it were under Indian suzerainty (which to be 100% clear, it is not), as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS, Indic scripts are not to be used. So either way, Hindi is not to be included on that page. But regardless, its baffling why you even brought up something so irrelevant in the first place.

And Satpal Dandiwal - I'm not sure you understand the basis of this argument. Not all Indians even use Devanagari script. Tamil Muslims in South India don't use Devanagri, right?Willard84 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect, a source published by Brill Academic Publishers clearly states this (and Ethnologue corroborates this): "Brokskat is a Shina dialect, close to the Shina variety of Gilgit, but with a considerable Tibetan loan vocabularly, mainly from Purik, with which it is in close contact." Capitals00 (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if a dialect, a "Very divergent dialect." And no mention of devanagri.Willard84 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that Brokskat (like the other Shina languages) has its own article and as a topic it's not subsumed here. – Uanfala 07:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks for making note of that. Since it is at the very least a "very divergent dialect" (if not its own language), then it isn't representative of Shina as a whole. Even if it is demonstrated that Brokstat speakers use devanagari (and that has not in any capacity been demonstrated), there's no reason to include Brokstat orthography for an article about Shina, and that it should be removed from this page. There seems to be a similar issue with the Balti language, where Capitals00 has included a suspect source to assert that they use devanagari as well. Willard84 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Willard84, Ethnologue is used throughout Wikipedia on language-related articles and it clearly states that the Balti language, which is spoken in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, is written in Devanagari. So far it seems that you just want to remove the mention of Devanagari, any reason why? Capitals00 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Because I strive for accuracy. Ethnologue is criticized for its lack of sources. It is not a primary scholarly source. There is no source at all mentioning that Balti uses Devanagari aside from Ethnologue, and perhaps some concocted source that agrees - like that Rajapurohit source. Willard84 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You haven't convinced anyone and we have reliable sources, including omniglot.[3] Given the previous long standing version and at least 2 editors, me and Satpal Dandiwal have opposed your views, you should not be removing Devanagari. It is not even a controversial information nor there is any dispute over it. You can move on or open WP:RFC. Capitals00 (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that omniglot is not a reliable source (see discussions from 2014 and 2015). It shouldn't be used in citations, but of course it can be useful as a pointer to further sources. – Uanfala 08:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Capitals00 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Ethnologue is not a scholarly source (they compile information from various places, some of which could be questionable). I also agree with Willard84 that the evidence that Devanagari is used with Shina is not there. Somebody proposed it. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

[4] also contains some details. Capitals00 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the same man. And, he is not claiming that it is used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate User:Uanfala leaving a message on my talk page about this and I have responded to him here. Until very recently, Shina was an unwritten language and currently, linguists are working on the development of orthographic systems used to write the language that has been passed on through the oral tradition. Many linguists have suggested the Perso-Arabic script, while others have suggested the Devanagari script. I have added some more information and references to the article in light of these facts. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses @Kautilya3:, @Anupam:, and @Uanfala:. I still think Devanagari should not be included in the transliteration in the lead paragraph since there is no evidence that it is actually used. User Capitols00 has offered several different sources to bolster his claim that Shina speakers use Devanagari, but each and every single source actually just mentions a proposal. There is no point in including proposed scripts when those scripts arent actually in use by any appreciable portion of Shina speakers. Its fine to mention the proposed script somewhere in the article, but not in the lead. Including it in the lead creates a false impression that the script has already been adopted and used. Especially since there appears to only be a single linguist (Rajapurohit) who attempted to devise a devanagari based writing system. In 1983.

It's also worth noting that Capitals00 is using the same unreliable sources (omniglot, ethnologue} to push for the inclusion of devanagari on that page too. You can see it at Talk:Balti language. Please comment there too if you get a chance.Willard84 (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see you still want more discussion about this. Your views have been replied, read what has been already said above and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Capitals00 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitols00, the response I gave is why Devanagari should not be included in the lead. I agree, its been established that there is no Shina script based on Devanagari that the Shina themselves use. Willard84 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion for a while, and I agree that there must be strong WP:RS to support the use of the script. So far, evidence hasn't been provided that Shina is written in Devanagari (other than being proposed; which is vague - how many Shina speakers know Devanagri, considering almost the entire ethnicity is in northern Pakistan?). WP:OR is a no-no as far as Wikipedia goes. Capitals00, I believe the WP:BURDEN falls on you to demonstrate the addition you want made. Until the requirements aren't satisfied, we can go ahead and remove it for the sake of readers and to avoid making the article misleading. Mar4d (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, there is no consensus to remove Devanagari from the article as users have recently provided evidence that Shina is an unwritten language and that both Perso-Arabic and Devanagari schemes have been used to write it. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually no Mar4d, several editors here - myself, User:Satpal Dandiwal, User:Anupam, User:Unanfala and User:1990'sguy have agreed that Devanagari is relevant to this article. We have enough sources to demonstrate the connection of Devanagari and Shina. The sources that were just added to the article agree clearly mention that the Drasi dialect of Shina (which is spoken in India) has both a Perso-Arabic and Devanagari scheme. Since consensus has been established, it's best to move on. Capitals00 (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitols00, I think you've completely misconstrued their positions. None of your articles prove what you claim, and I certainly don't see the consensus you claim. And where is this User:1990'sguy anywhere in this debate? What source mentions Drasi? You've brought up several sources which have all been refuted. A simple google search for Drasi Devanagri again points to Rajapurohits proposal which you seem to mistaken for actual use. The same source you've cited any number of ways. I can't find access to the paper you cite in the article: is there a reason why you can't provide a hyperlink?

In fact, in regards to consensus, ±it seems to be mostly the opposite, with one user offering a 50:50 compromise that I addressed above as still being inaccurate. And Satwal, all the evidence points to a proposed Devanagari script, not one which is actually used. Please re read the debate.Willard84 (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as you are the only one who has been removing Devanagari and bringing up this "debate" in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:IDHT after others have left it as WP:DEADHORSE, you should not misrepresent position of others. Find a source saying "not one which is actually used". Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you're the one misrepresenting opinions - but those users can clarify for themselves. And the burden is on you since you've bombastically declared that there is ample evidence for devanagri use without providing a single reliable source. And we've shown your sources to not claim what you do. The burden is on you to finally offer some real reliable evidence. Its most illogical to turn it around and demand others find sources that negate the your hypothesis that you yourself can't back with reliable sources. So far the evidence only shows perso Arabic is actually used, even if sparingly (see my university of California citation above, and source in section above this from 2016 by @Rajmaan:)Willard84 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

How about you provide evidence, these links[5][6][7][8] proves that you are eager to misrepresent consensus, while you are not even sure yourself.[9] Your original research is contradicted by this reliable source,[10] which says "until recently, not written. Recently, a few writing systems have been proposed, but there is as yet no sign of a single system acceptable to all Shina speakers." Capitals00 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 - you've literally demonstrated nothing again. The comments on Uanfala's page were, once again, in reference to a proposal. Pointing to others' comments won't bolster your fundamentally weak argument. And no one said all Shina agree on a script - that's an argument which no one made. But the reliable sources I've mentioned above at least say shina use perso Arabic, even if it isn't universally agreed upon, you, on the other hand, keep pointing to proposals and seem to confuse this with actual usage. Willard84 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So far you are treating that Shina has no other system except Perso-Arabic. But other than Perso-Arabic, there is Devanagari. By removing Devanagari you would tell editors that all Shina speakers a single system, but that is not supported by most sources. Capitals00 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

And you pointed to me asking them to come back to this page to represent themselves since we disagree as to what they meant, but that me being unsure of myself? I don't even know how you draw these conclusions. But you aren't doing yourself favors. And all that has been demonstrated is that these people themselves actually use the Arabic script, even if sparingly. You on the other hand are pressing for a script to be included for which there's no evidence that these people have even adopted for themselves. They either use Arabic based script, or none at all it seems. Certainly not Devanagari. Willard84 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your last sentence has to be supported by source. There is no evidence that a single system is being used, instead there are sources that say otherwise. Capitals00 (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The only script that seems in use is perso Arabic, even if sparingly. If there are others, please show us because nothing suggests Devanagari is actually used. Which is my point. You keep claiming that this is incorrect by repeatedly pointing to proposed schemes as indications of actual usage. You've even tried to quote sources which themselves quote the Rajapurohit proposal, like that Cardona source above for example, as a false source to support your claims that Shina use Devanagari. Proposals do not indicate usage. The Devanagari scheme was proposed in 1983 - 34 years ago. There's no evidence anyone uses it. There's no reason to include old and seemingly discarded proposals in the lead sentence. It can be mentioned in the body as a proposed script from 1983. Anupam's statement that "some" have proposed devanagri is incorrect as only one person, Rajapurohit, has done so. Again with nothing to suggest this was ever adopted by any Shina. No one seems to use it, thus it is more of a historical curiosity more than anything else at this point.

Its illogical to ask someone to disprove your false hypothesis. It's like me demanding you show me a source stating Kurds on't use Devanagari script if some random linguist in 1983 once suggested a Devanagari scheme for Kurdish that no evidence suggests was ever adopted. Kurds seem to use two scripts, so that's included on their page. Proposed scripts are not. Do you understand that proposals aren't indicative of actual usage? I'll check your response later. Just as a note, my absence doesn't mean or signify anything else. Willard84 (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If we go by your opinion, then we will have to remove mention of Devanagari from entire article, but that's not something we can do. Capitals00 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• This discussion is simply running in a loop, and leading to nothing new. Capitals00, I have yet to see you provide reliable sources to support your position. The ones you cited have been deemed insufficient. Parroting the same WP:OR back and forth and claiming (non-existent) WP:CONSENSUS will not cut it unfortunately. I suggest you please go through what Willard84, Kautilya3, Anupam and Uanfala have suggested above. At the moment, you have not addressed any of those concerns. Failing this, we can opt for a third option mechanism. Pinging RegentsPark. Btw, Nastaliq remains the primary script used in Gilgit and surrounding areas. There are exceptions like Balti which until very recently used Tibetan characters. Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about Willard84 but no one else wants to remove Devanagari' mention. That's how I have already gone through what they have suggested. In place of canvassing more editors you can instead open a WP:RFC or just move on. Capitals00 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d, Funny you should mention Balti, since he's doing the same thing at Talk:Balti languageWillard84 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going through the sources kindly provided by Anupam and it seems that the different competing schemes that have been proposed for the various dialects of Shina are all Perso-Arabic, except Rajapurohit's, which is proposed for the Drasi variety spoken by a small (10,000 people in the 1970s) community in India. This proposal is described in the 1975 paper, and further presented alongside a Perso-Arabic scheme in the 1983 booklet. The 2012 e-book gives the two schemes again, with the Perso-Arabic one being primary and the Devanagari given as an option. Again, these are all proposals, the fieldwork they were based on was conducted in the 1970s and there's no indication which, if any, of the schemes was actually adopted by the community. The fact that the Indian community is small relative to the total population of Shina speakers doesn't matter much: if a given script has been adopted and sees significant use then it should be mentioned. However, we don't have evidence that it sees any use at all. We only have a reference in the omniglot entry (an unreliable source), but the language enthusiast who contributed it has based in on Rajapurohit's book and he clearly fails to appreciate the difference between a proposal and actual use. To wrap up: unless reliable sources are found that state that Devanagari sees significant use in the community, the infobox entry is unsourced, while the Devanagari version of the name "Shina" in the first sentence of the lede is misleading, and both should be removed. – Uanfala 10:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks for your clarification and input. The article can certainly discuss this linguistic research, and the proposals with respect to Shina's writing system. To claim that this script is actually in use however is factually misleading and incorrect, as you implied, and with which I concur. I guess we are agreed upon and fairly clear with that. Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: For now I have removed the Devanagari's mention from lead and infobox, "unless reliable sources are found". Although I believe that we should really give some importance to this source that I had provided.[11] Sorry if you have read this already, but I would still note that it says "until recently, not written. Recently, a few writing systems have been proposed, but there is as yet no sign of a single system acceptable to all Shina speakers.", so maybe on infobox we can say "Perso-Arabic script and others" and/or just summarize this on lead? Capitals00 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't address the fact that only one system has been used even sparingly by the Shina - Perso Arabic. The "others" (likely code for "Devanagari") are just a proposal. Please re-read where he rightly noted that unless evidence is found that these other proposals are significantly used, they shouldn't be included.Willard84 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've slightly expanded the relevant section in the article and with the current state of affairs this source just reiterates what we already have based on slightly more in-depth texts. Still, it's useful as a summary and I wouldn't object if you add it in some way. As for having the infobox say "Perso-Arabic script and others", this will work for example for Balti language, but here it will be misleading: the use of "others" implies two or more scripts, while so far we've seen just a single alternative – Devanagari. Probably worth noting that the "writing systems" in the quote above most likely refers to different orthographies, which do not necessarily entail different scripts. As for summarising it all in the lede – why not?, although the text in the article is already pretty condensed and condensing it even more while maintaining balance might be a bit tricky. – Uanfala 13:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Responding to ping). Looks like this is resolved and well summarized by uanfala above so I won't comment on the specifics but, in general, other things being equal, the default script for languages in Pakistan should be a nastaliq derivative. Devanagari, or some other script, would need to be strongly sourced for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you guys so much for your time and for putting an end to the nonsensical arguments being made to include Devanagari. I hate to request this, but please take at look at Talk:Balti language, because Capitals00 is using the same logic again over there, by pointing to unreliable sources, ancient scripts, and a phonetic reader which just used devanagari again as a proposal. There is no evidence that Balti use Devanagari as well from what I can tell. Willard84 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering whether the Shina-language name in the first sentence where it's given in the Arabic script (ݜینا) is entirely unproblematic. The ṣ is represented using the letter sin modified by four dots above. I'd presume this must be the Gilgiti standard, which is different from the one used in Kohistani Shina, where according to Bashir 2016 the modification consists in "two short horizontal lines", or from the one proposed for Drasi, which looks like two small circles. It doesn't seem like we have a single way of writing "Shina" that will be acceptable to all groups. – Uanfala 13:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this comment of yours as well as the above one. I have added my suggested sentences on lead now. Capitals00 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nast3lyq

Does the cited reference ethnologue actually support the use of the nasta'liq style script? (stated in the infobox under "writing system") i can't afford ethnologue's "only" $480 per year subscription fee to check it. Irtapil (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the paywalled new edition of Ethnologue, but last year's edition says the following for Shina [scl]: "Arabic script, Naskh variant [Arab]. Arabic script, Nastaliq variant [Aran]", while listing only Nastaliq for Kohistani Shina [plk]. Ethnologue is not necessarily a reliable source. – Uanfala (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)