Talk:Tenun

Etymology

@Blueberryl: Try to get a grasp of historical linguistics. The earliest attestation of a word in a specific language is not the necesessarily the source of cognates in related languages.

You have doctered a quote from Sardjono (2017), changing the origial text from:

• "The word to 'weave', manenun, and 'to be woven', tinenun, are derived from the indigenous Old Javanese word, tenun."

to:

• "The word derived from the indigenous Old Javanese word, tenun."

in order to suggest that Sardjono talks about the origin of the Indonesian word, whereas in fact her discussion is about which weaving-related terminology is local and which is imported India. This is apparent from the following text:

• "The local term points to the technology's native origin, In contrast, the word for the spinning wheel, cakra, is derived from Sanskrit, which identifies the source of the technology from India.

Her point is, weaving was native to Java before the island came under the influence of Indic culture. She does not suggest that Java is the source of all weaving traditions in Indonesia and wider Insular Southeast Asia.

I have given a reliable source that explicit talks about the origin of weaving in ISEA and the related terminology. Zoetmulder's dictionary is a very good source for Old Javanese, in fact it is still the best one. But you shouldn't conclude anything from it that isn't there. Austronesier (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Try to grasp historical linguistic" seems like you need to implement these word for yourself, because apparently you're trying so hard to push your POV as if the "Tenun" just popped up out of nowhere and claimed its origin being "Indonesian", while the Old Javanese itself predates the existence of "Indonesia" itself. And in that source, it clearly didn't even mentioned about Indonesian or anything like what you trying to depicts right now. And the fact that you keep talking about Zoetmulder's source being there is really irrational because that source is not the only one source that stated the ultimate attested origin (not hypothetical nor delutional reconstruction) of that word. (Blueberryl (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC))

By the same logic, you could say that English "name" derives from Sanskrit नामन् (nā́man). Of course it doesn't; both originate from a common (unattested) source, Proto-Indo-European. Have we met before in Wiktionary? Your line of arguments sounds awfully familiar? –Austronesier (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

However in linguistic sense, the attested version is the one that should be used as the etymological "evidence", because the "Proto-" forms are only reconstructed (which pretty much delutional) derived from those attested real evidences. By the way, I already re-input your "Proto-Austronesian" stuff to satisfy your nonsense. (Blueberryl (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC))

@Austronesier, from the track record @Blueberryl. This account is sock-puppet from LTA @Eiskrahablo. If you look at the article in Indonesian (Tenun in Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia) edited by PegiatWiki this account has been blocked. Track records of these two accounts is same. Farhan Curious (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Farhan Curious: Let's collect some more diffs and file an SPI. There's good material in the one of Wiktionary's discussion boards, but it needs some digging. But note that shared incompetence sometimes does not necessarily imply the same person :) –Austronesier (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Here we go: wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/January#langit. –Austronesier (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)