User talk:Hunnjazal

Please move a page using the merge tab at the top, not simply copying and pasting the article to its new name, and redirecting the old article. This means the edit history for an article is no longer available at its new location. It probably wont matter for North India Cultural Zone as it only has you an an editor so far, but in the future please use the move button. Regards, Matty (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Now I have learnt something useful and new. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating the different definitions of North India in the article. Keep it up, Sir! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my compliments too. Thanks a lot for your contributions. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KnowledgeHegemony & Fundamental metric tensor, for your kind words! --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red Corridor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For exhibiting a dedication to WP:NPOV beyond your experience, I hereby present you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Show it with pride! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am truly humbled! --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mafia Raj, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions. – RyanCross (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ryan! --Hunnjazal (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fodder Scam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, thank you!!

Thanks for the excellent job you have done at Atashgah of Baku. *phew* But you ought to reconsider your paragraph that begins with "Given that..." It is both specifically WP:SYNTHesis, and generally WP:OR (it is also factually incorrect). This, like a few other things you've introduced that don't say anything about the site, can't be used in the manner you use them (i.e. drawing conclusions from them). But other this, you've done fine work. Well done. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are overdoing it, and you are jumping to conclusions. Not only is Gaur is a dialectal variant for Gabr, Gabr is a generic term for any non-Muslim, and has been since at least the 13th century. And that bit about the trishul in Zoroastrianism is obviously made up. The comparison with fire, and proto-indo-iranian stuff is also not only out of context, it is false: Jwalji is not just fire; the people who went there went there to be cremated. So, please stop adding two plus two, and instead stick to what the sources that discuss the site say. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't correct. I will add a ref on the trishul bit btw. It was in an Azeri presentation. Except for the one ref (Hanway) which has been criticized by Williams, I don't see Gebr referring to any Hindus ever. I am not saying it hasn't been done. I am just saying I haven't seen a text for it. I think calling Hindus Gebr is WP:OR unless you support with refs. The proto-Indo-Iranian stuff is now gone because it isn't directly relevant (so I agree on that score), but it isn't WP:OR. Yajna and Yasna did have common origin and diverged. Much like Vayu and Vayu-Vata. There are tons of refs on this. Basically, both faiths stress the elements in worship and both hold consecrated fire as sacred. It isn't surprising that lay Muslims or Europeans would make misidentify things unless they knew enough about the differences. There's an article on Proto-Indo-Iranian religion - check it out. I cannot accept this on hearsay: Jwalji is not just fire; the people who went there went there to be cremated. It is true that there are refs that say people who died there were cremated. I don't see anywhere that people went there to be cremated. If you want to speculate, well, that's WP:OR. Thank you for your previous praise, as well as your later critiques. --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right about lay people misidentifying things. That's why they misidentified the place to begin with. On hearsay, so to speak. With respect to Gabr or Yasna: try reading what you linked to. Of course I can support my assertions with refs. Otherwise I wouldn't make them. But like all the barney on Yasna, fire, and what not, they are off-topic, and it would be OR to use them. I repeat: please stop adding two plus two, and instead stick to what the sources that discuss the site say. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get it. Where in Gabr does it say the word was used for Hindus? Except for Hanway (whose quote is in the article, plus the critique from Williams), point to another which says Hindus are Gabr. Are you sure you're not making an error with homonyms or close-homonyms? I must ask you to please stop adding two plus two on this one. Yasna isn't in the article anymore, so regardless of whether we disagree on this, it is irrelevant now - what's the point of arguing for the sake of arguing? What precisely in the current article are you objecting to as OR? It would be helpful if you put down that sentence here and said what you propose replacing it with. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Gabr referred to Hindus. I said Gabr referred to non-Muslims. And, I said Gaur was a dialectal variant of Gabr. Both statements (A) non-Muslims, and (B) dialectal variant, are correct. You may contrast this with your supposition that Gabr is always specifically Zoroastrian, and that Gaur refers to a Hindu caste.

"Fire is considered extremely sacred ...": WP:SYNTHesis (part of NOR), reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case, you conclude that correlation is somehow related to the site, which the sources do not state.

ps: Verifiability is covered by WP:V. In contrast, WP:NOR that deals with tying things together that a source does not tie together. With respect to what a youtube video says, see WP:RS. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pps: Please don't misconstrue the critique as implying that your edits are generally unsound. On the contrary, I greatly value what you are doing. -- Fullstop (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is validity in what you say, {{sofixit}} --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Family planning in India, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Materialscientist! --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to the India-related articles. utcursch | talk 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Utcursch! This is a very pleasant surprise and deeply appreciated! --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You come across as a contributor who possess great depth. Are you a history professor/ student? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're far too kind & thank you. I'm not either of those though. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention and time needed here. If possible please contribute. ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two-Nation_Theory#Two_Nation_Theory_today Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anup Rai, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Indo-aryan is not a race as you try to impose rather it is a language based categorization. What you think Indo-Aryan is all about. Ip certainly has some concern about it and you impose violate NPOV on it. how?? Please explain. why you try to segregate people clubbing them into races while all scholar material always denied of any existence of such race. read Race (classification of humans) before you say indo-aryan is a race. can you please show me any scholarly material which says Indo-Aryan is a race. --Onef9day ^Talk! 08:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss. It is not a race, but it is an umbrella ethnicity. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hunnjazal, I am awarding you this barnstar for all the wonderful South Asian related articles that you have contributed to and created. I have added it to your user page. Best of luck! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the wonderful South Asian related articles that you have contributed to and created. --AnupamTalk 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anupam, this is great encouragement! --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, you deserve it! By the way, I corrected your recent edit to the Devanagari article. The equivalent of the Urdu ژ is actually झ़. You can refer to this website as well as this one for more information. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 03:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... then what is य़ (unicode U+095F - see the table at Devnagri#Devan.C4.81gar.C4.AB_in_Unicode)? See: http://askjot.com/search/Hindi-Alphabet . y and zh are close sounds for many North Indians. I can't find a good ref for this - but you know how some Punjabi and Kashmiri communities treat y and zh as allophones (especially older people who do not speak English well and are seeped only in their native language), with a soft zh pronounced when a word starts and y if it's in the middle? Instead of 'yaar' (friend) they say 'zhaar' (soft zh). Instead of pleasure (ple.zh.ure) they say pleyure. Yellow is Zhellow, vision is viyyan. Ye kya hai becomes Zhe kya hai. Others do the western Hindi thing, of course, y and zh both become j - Jamuna, Je kya hai, televijon. --Hunnjazal (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Hunnjazal Sahib and for your references. I personally have never seen the character य़ being used in written Hindi, although it is interesting that the sources you give list it. Although y and zh may be informally treated as allophones at times, I know that झ़ is the official character for the Urdu ژ. The is demonstrated by the Hindustani word for "porcupine" (zhuzh), which is ژوژ in Urdu (see dictionary) and झ़ूझ़ in Hindi (see dictionary). In my opinion, it makes sense that since that aspirated form of ज / j is झ / jh, the aspirated form of ज़ / z is झ़ / zh. I hope this helps. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it does make sense - झ़ and झ do sound like similar sounds. If j goes to z with a nuqta, it makes sense that jh would go to zh. Still odd about य़ though - wonder what it is, and why it was important enough to reserve a unicode spot for it. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as well. If you find anything where the letter य़ is used, I would be glad to know! Thanks for discussing the issue with me. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think of this section? I do not find it to be completely factual. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to the India-related articles specially Bhand. Onef9day Talk! 23:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you Onef9day!! --Hunnjazal (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi! you own it. you have contributed to wiki with accuracy. you rock --Onef9day ^Talk! 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thank you, Hunnjazal, for starting the new article on Bhoot (ghost). Please be encouraged to expand this article to 1500+ characters long and, if interested, submit it for Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2010. Happy editing! Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hunnjazal, thank you for expanding the article. I've nominated it for DYK. (Nom.) There is a request from the DYK operators for page numbers in the bibliography. This appears to be the only thing preventing your work from getting onto Wikipedia's MainPage on Halloween. Please add page numbers as you see fit. Thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am working on article Rajasthani people for some time now. Please review it and suggest what else can be included. Thought it is not yet in good shape but still your review will be great help. --Onef9day ^Talk! 07:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kulhar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!! --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the North India article when I found this statement: "Dras is the second coldest inhabited place on the planet." Being very interested in climatology, I went to Dras and looked at the climate data found in that article. Immediately I laughed, as I could, offhand, give dozens of examples of inhabited locations that are significantly colder than Dras, if the climate data found and referenced in that article is correct (these places include Winnipeg, Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Dawson City, Inuvik, Fort Nelson, Iqaluit, High Level, International Falls, Prince Albert, Flin Flon, Moosonee, Schefferville, Fairbanks, Astana, Ulan Bator, Khovd, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Yakutsk, Oymyakon, Verkhoyansk and many others, for example).

I looked through the revision history of the North India article to see who added the statement in question, and I found you. Now, I do not intend for this to be a personal attack, and the statement was added over two years ago, but I am wondering just how in the hell you could possibly think that Dras is the second coldest place in the world? This is obviously not true (at least to me, I realise I know more about climatology than most people), not even close, no matter what Lonely Planet says! I am just very much baffled and mystified about how someone could think this.

Obviously, I have edited the North India article accordingly. Again, this isn't any sort of personal attack; I just had to bring this to your attention. All the best. 1brettsnyder (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in your talk page. I've reversed it because this is based on synthesis. More discussion on your talk page. Assuming an honest mistake at play here. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I defer. I went to my local library, found the Lonely Planet book, and it does say this. I now realise you are entirely right. What I did was OR. I must admit, I too often try to edit Wikipedia to contain what is correct (or just what I think is correct, as in this case), even though I know this is not what Wikipedia is about. Also, when I read and edited the statement about Dras, and when I wrote the above message, I was in a different state of mind, one could say (not that this in any way makes my violation of WP:NOR acceptable). So I apologise, as I was in the wrong, and thank you for assuming good faith ("Assuming an honest mistake at play here"), and for correcting me when I most certainly needed it. All the best. 1brettsnyder (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The article is better for it. First, it's made me realize how tricky the whole "this is second coldest" thing is, so I've softened it by sticking in the word "claimed." Second, it is now better referenced. Third, I've realized just how poor the climate data is in most Indian location articles - maybe I'll do something to bring at least a few up to standard. I looked at your other contributions to Wikipedia. You've definitely got a solid track record of making a difference with your expertise/interest, and I appreciate that. --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so cool about this. I will strikethrough my original message (hope that's OK with you). I've made such a fool of myself here I think I'll have to take a wikibreak. 1brettsnyder (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being far too hard on yourself! If it makes you feel better, feel free to delete this thread from my talk page and yours. I urge you to reconsider your wikibreak - you've got a lot to contribute and should keep doing it! --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam Hunnjazal, I have added some information to the Raksha Bandhan article, which I hope you will take a look it. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some consolidation in the article. I put all the history in one section and kept the opener simpler. I did something similar with Two Nation Theory. All your content was great but I have centralized it. By the way, this Bahadur Shah character is interesting. Did you know that he ended up dealing with the Portuguese and was killed when they stabbed him on one of their ships and threw him into the Arabian Sea? All this while the Mughals were still in their early period in North India. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bhoot (ghost), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the nomination Rlevse! --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is going on at talk:WikiProject Rajasthan for Merger of Marwaris into Rajasthani people. Please participate. --Onef9day ^Talk! 08:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i need your help on subject Sufism. I have very little knowledge on this subject. can you please help me in finding reliable sources on the subject. Thanks. --Onef9day ^Talk! 09:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onef9day, I found a reference to a paper specifically on this, but can't locate a copy online. Let me search some more. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi Hunnjazal, how are you? i'm still in search of material related to Sufism and its developments in rajasthan. i want to include it in rajasthani people article. it is my guess that Sufism is more prevalent in rajasthan. any information will be useful. thanks --Onef9day ^Talk! 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just asking you because it seems you may know: Do you know when the schwa syncope phenomenon arose in Hindi? For instance, was it present around 1100, or in the Awadhi of Tulsidas aroudn ? It doesn't exist in Sanskrit, and presumably (I think?) didn't exist in the Prakrit languages of, say, around the sixth century… so there must have been a time when it started. Is something known about this, do you know? (Or is it impossible to trace, because it's not reflected in the script?)

Come to think of it, it seems a good idea to write an article on schwa deletion in Hindi-Urdu... it would be a useful and informative article! Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good question and, unfortunately, I haven't yet seen a good answer on it. A couple of things seem true for sure - this is not just an innovation restricted to Hindi-Urdu, and it appears to significantly predate Devnagari. It is a powerful phenomenon pervasive in most north and central Indo-Aryan languages and Iranian as well (maybe in other branches of IE too). You see this in Sanskrit words that have been entirely lost in H-U but continue in other northern languages. Example: draksha (grape) is gone from H-U (dakh disappeared by about 1850), but in Kashmiri it survives as dachch. Cognates show this too: bhrata (Sanskrit), bhrat (HU), biradar (Persian), brat (Russian), brother (English) or sapta (Sanskrit), sapt (Hindi), satt (Punjabi), haft (Persian), sept (Latin). It could be that schwa syncope was actually the "normal" (used cautiously, I could be wrong on this) tendency for all of IE and only some languages were at odds with it, including Classical Sanskrit and, apparently, Avestan (yasna not yasn/yasan, just as yajna not yajn; soma/homa not som/hom). Awadhi ("Avdhi") has schwa syncope: आवत रहिन is aavat rahin, not aavata rahina. Bhojpuri has it too: घमंड is ghamand, not ghamanda. It exists in the names too: Bhojpuri, not Bhojapuri; Bihar, not Bihara (which it should be from vihara). Bengali, however, clearly retains many schwas that H-U and others drop. So, "jono gono mono" or "protishtono" or "Bangla/Bonglo". Please imagine circumflexes on top of the Bengali 'o's. Happy to do an article on schwa syncope - it's a good idea. Some languages show a reverse trend. Old German had many optional schwas at word endings, which Modern German has made mandatory. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks, that's a very informative answer. You should start an article!

Interesting that it seems to be present everywhere. (In my experience, it's also present to some extent in Kannada and Telugu in spoken speech, but not (or to an even smaller extent) in formal language.) I also wonder whether it's related to the role stress plays in a language; as a non-linguist my naive suspicion is that it's probably more common in stress-timed languages… and the metrical nature of most classical Sanskrit compositions, for which fixed syllable length is crucial, perhaps acted against such a phenomenon in Sanskrit. (Plus, of course, the language being completely defined and fixed by Panini :p.) BTW, how is it determined whether it was present in certain older varieties of Hindi? Are there clues from outside spelling? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for prompting me because I did write an article, Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages, which I will expand as time permits. You could be right about stress-timing and meter - it makes sense. Could it be though that this was a formal thing and that actual speech in those days still had schwa deletion? We can't really tell afaik. On older Hindi, the Nagri makes it tough to tell. Maybe there are hints in comparing with Perso-Arabic and checking Khusro's meter. Another track might be to do guru-laghu counting on, say, Tulsidas verses that contains a definite halant, e.g. here's two -

देंहिं असीस जोहारि सब गावहिं गुन गन गाथ।

तब गुर भूसुर सहित गृहँ गवनु कीन्ह नरनाथ॥

सुनि दसकंठ रिसान अति तेहिं मन कीन्ह बिचार।

राम दूत कर मरौं बरु यह खल रत मल भार॥

I realize now that I don't know how to do this laghu-guru counting as well as I thought. Please hold while I educate myself :) --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article; thanks! It would be good to know if there are differences in schwa deletion across languages (whether schwas that would be deleted if the word were in one language aren't deleted in another language), but I don't know if such information exists. And the idea of using old verses and checking for metrical constraints is a good one! We could then apply it to texts from different ages (e.g. starting with old Prakrit texts like, say, the Gāhā Sattasaī) and try to figure out if the process changed… seems like a research project. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely are differences, though the scripts again neglect to specify them. Since only natives tend to speak most other IA languages except Hindi-Urdu, this is a non-issue as the natives pronounce it using the correct diction anyway. E.g. the HU samāpt (finished) is usually pronounced smāpt or smāpat in Punjabi and kamāl is optionally pronounced k'māl. Of course, Punjabi also inserts schwas based on its own phonology, so moorkh becomes moorakh. Spoken Hindi-Urdu does it too sometimes: school becomes askool or iskool. Punjabi makes it sakool. Punjabi, Dogri, Kashmiri (Pashto too) delete leading schwas and short-vowels sometimes, which HU do not: agarbatti becomes garbatti when spoken, ikattha (collected) becomes kattha. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be a non-issue because no outsiders ever learn the language (is that true?), but as a linguistic phenomenon it would be still be worth describing, IMO.

For the Tulsidas dohas, this book says that

Doha is a verse consisting of two lines of 24 instants [mātras] divided into two 'charanas' and six feet as follows: 6+4+3, 6+4+1. The last foot in the first charana must be a tribrach or an iambus, not a trochee. The last syllable of each line must be short. For long, specially in medieval period, it was the most popular and common of all metres, much used by Kabir, Tulsidas and all the major poets of the age.

So I took the second verse, and marked out known laghus (one mātra) with * and known gurus (two mātras) with ** and the rest with ?:

     suni dasakaṃṭha risāna ati / tehiṃ mana kīnha bicāra।
     * *  * ? ** ?   * ** ? * * / ** *  * ?  ** ?  * ** ?
     rāma dūta kara marauṃ baru / yaha khala rata mala bhāra॥
     ** ? ** ? * ?  * **   * *  / * ?  *  ?  * ?  * ?  ** ?

Though I don't see the break-up into feet, to get the right number of syllables (13 + 11) it turns out that all but one ? (one in the second half of the first line) needs to add a matra. This by itself is not sufficient to conclude that all those vowels were pronounced, because in many cases, if those vowels are treated as equivalent to a halant, then it would make the previous syllable a guru, adding one matra if we'd counted the previous syllable as a laghu. But in cases where the previous syllable was already guru, we're forced to treat the schwa as pronounced for the metre to work out: thus we must say that the ठ in दसकंठ, the न in रिसान, the म in राम, the त in दूत were pronounced, as also (because of the "last syllable of each line must be short") the र in बिचार and भार, giving us this (where ? may either be pronounced, or be deleted and contribute to the previous syllable):

     suni dasakaṃṭha risāna ati / tehiṃ mana kīnha bicāra।
     * *  * ? ** *   * ** * * * / ** *  * ?  ** ?  * ** *
     rāma dūta kara marauṃ baru / yaha khala rata mala bhāra॥
     ** * ** * * ?  * **   * *  / * ?  *  ?  * ?  * ?  ** *

What do you think? Is there a mistake somewhere? Shreevatsa (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... if we write it as it is read today by Hindi-speakers (except in singing voice, when naturally all kinds of liberties are taken, including singing to rhythmic bass accompaniment):

     suni daskaṅth risān ati tehiṅ man kīṅh bichār ।
     * *  * **  *  * *** **  ***   * * ** * * ** *
     rām dūt kar maroṅ baru yeh khal rat mal  bhār ॥
     *** *** * * * **  * *  * * *  * * * * *  ** *

24 each. Also read in http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zwKmHX37dbIC&pg=PA451 that sometimes only the instants across the entire charan total 24 without any balancing within the subdivisions. The 6/4/3+6/4/1 rule may apply to Maithili and/or Bengali dohas only (unsure about this, though your link quotes it in that connection and it makes sense because there are region-specific practices). Anyway, this example here says that a न with halant is being treated as a vowel nasalization, which is exactly how it is interchangeably written in Modern Hindi anyway. I guess we should look at a halant example of a letter other than न. ṃ and ṅ distinctions do not exist in Hindi (chand bindu, bindu, न with halant are all ṅ) and a म with halant would be fine - it is never nasalized in Modern Hindi. --Hunnjazal (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[BTW, I don't know the transliteration method you're using… I just took the text from the GRETIL etext. It wasn't meant to indicate pronunciation but just the letters in Devanagari, because my editor was having trouble with Devanagari. :-)]

So here's the thing: the सा in रिसान can only contribute two matras to the total, and the रि only one… so since you have four for रिसान, does this mean that a schwa is pronounced in the न? Similarly, does three matras for राम mean that the म counts as one matra? The same reasoning applies to the ठ in दसकंठ, the न in मन, the ह in कीन्ह, the र in बिचार, the म in राम, the त in दूत, the र in भार, etc. — basically, all the ones I said or marked with a ?. So what is being dropped here? :-) [To clarify: If रिसान were identical to रिसान् then we'd have "रिसान अति" = रिसान् अति" = "रिसानति", and similarly with राम्दूत् (or रांदूत्), etc., which wouldn't give the right number of matras. So the markings you've shown, which are really the same as what I wrote, indicate that no schwas are really dropped. Or not?] Shreevatsa (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the "let me write this in Latin script as faithfully as I can" method of transcription :-) Hindi is like English in this respect (kind-of but not exactly), and unlike Sanskrit. Look at the रिसान अति = रिसान् अति = रिसानति situation. In Hindi, you're saying: risān əti = risān əti = risānəti. This is fine (kind-of, not really - though not why you would expect). It's like writing: rān alone = rān alone = rānalone. Note that रिसानति and रिसान् अति are (usually) pronounced differently in Hindi though. Both रिसान अति and रिसान् अति, read fast, would be risānəti. In Hindi, रिसानति would be risānti. In Sanskrit, रिसान+अति sandhi would give you risānāti instead. This is also where Hindi is different from British English and more active in deleting schwas: run along is rənəlong but, if you string them together in Hindi, it would become rənlong. American English has some similar tendencies. "Run along now" becomes "Run 'long now".

Back to counting and the question of what is being dropped: there is a big difference between voiceless and silent. The न् in रिसान् isn't really silent because otherwise it would be identical to रिसा. The counting is tracking timing. न् and न seem to take roughly equal time to me. This might also undo our proposed research project, I realize, because this means that matra counting may not get us to an understanding of whether Tulsi had schwa deletion or not :(

Disclaimer to all this is that I still don't have a good hang of guru-laghu counting. I reserve the right to make mistakes in counting, even big really-wrong-in-hindsight mistakes :) --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "silent". :-) When you say that न् and न seem to take equal time, I'm not sure whether you mean the न in word-final position or elsewhere: are you saying that in मन, the म and न take equal time, even though a schwa is dropped in the later? That doesn't make much sense to me. In the way modern Hindi is pronounced, with word-final a being well and truly deleted, a word like रिसान (which I haven't actually heard in modern Hindi, but मिसाल, say) does count as only three matras, equivalent to रिसा रिसू रिसां रिसाँ, etc. Or, to put it more simply, risānəti has only 1+2+1+1=5 matras in total, not the 6 we need to assign to रिसान अति. Right? If "रिसान अति" has more matras than risānəti, it implies that "रिसान अति" is not being pronounced as "risān əti" but there's something "extra" after the n and before əti. To mea this says the schwa is not deleted, unless you want to argue that the schwa is replaced by something of equal length. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am still learning this counting thing. Second, so maybe not exactly equal, but a halant sound has to count for more than a non-sound, you agree? Non-sound is zero. Guru sounds are 2. Where does that leave halant consonants? As Mr. Spock says "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" :-) रिसा रिसू रिसां रिसाँ are 3 each. मिसाल is a simple word that is clearly 4 matras by laghu-guru rules, so they are not equal. Yet मिसाल is pronounced misāl and not misālə (listen to it in any native Hindi reading) and by Sanskrit rules would be rendered मिसाल्. "मिसाल अभी" is misāləbhi (count of 6) but "मिसालभी" becomes misālbhi (schwa syncope - a classic vc_cv example) but guru-laghu rules still make it 6. I am sure about this one, because it is so simple. This may seem odd, but it is decidedly less odd than रिसान/रिसान् and रिसा being equal. I had put in some rhyming examples but realized they're unwieldy because it's too easy to stretch things here and there to make things rhyme or not. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the crux of the matter seems this to me: do you agree that risānəti (pronounced as such) has a length of only 5 matras in total? And that रिसान अति has six? That is, they are pronounced with different duration? Shreevatsa (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, misāl is four. This is exactly how ghazals are analyzed btw - http://gazalkbahane.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post_10.html. You're confounding Sanskrit counting with Hindi counting. Remember, schwa syncope is an unconscious process for Hindi speakers, a kind of allophony. As with conditional allophony, in some places a schwa must be used and in others a schwa must be dropped. Native speakers do so unconsciously and correctly, but non-natives are thrown for a loop and natives notice it when it is done incorrectly. It is perceived as a non-native accent and sometimes can interfere with intelligibility. Similar to pen/phen in English. In certain places, it is entirely likely that there is free allophony, i.e. individual preference rules. This is important because it means that Hindi writers will basically perceive consonants with and without schwas as the same phoneme, i.e. not make any attempts to indicate this in writing and likely gloss over the phenomenon in laghu-guru counting too. I already answered your question (with different words) and feel like you totally dodged mine. risānəti has a count of 5 as does risān.ti when it is rendered as रिसानति (I think this is where you're not grokking this). रिसान अति is 6 even though it too is risānəti. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too, which is why I want you to answer my question. No matter how you slice it, the counting is NOT accurately reflecting sounds and timing. Are you claiming it takes as much time to say रिसा as to say रिसान्? If it's not, how can the count be equal if the count were accurately representing timing and pronunciation? I thought we already discussed this before BTW. This is precisely why I wondered "could it be though that this was a formal thing and that actual speech in those days still had schwa deletion." Basically, how do we know these schwas were not injected into a formalized, ritualistic version of Sanskrit (so the counting and the recitation would be aligned) and that natural speech always sounded like HU/Punjabi/Persian/Pashto/English/French and most IE languages sounds like today? BTW I had pulled an example from Doha (poetry) but its totals didn't actually add-up! Clearly, it's not just us who are struggling with this :) --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my motivation is not to argue but to understand the phenomenon, so please don't be annoyed. :-)

So, setting aside laghu/guru counting rules for a moment, first I want to know whether "रिसान अति " is pronounced with a longer duration than risānəti. If so how much longer is this duration? 0.5? 1? This is only a phonetic question about duration, not about conventions of poetry. And it's also not about whether Hindi speakers perceive them as same or different, but about what actually is, if at all such a question is meaningful.

Now, returning to laghu/guru (I had written this earlier, but deleted it): in the conventions of prosody that I know (Sanskrit and Kannada), it is true that रिसाति and रिसान्ति are both counted as laghu-guru-laghu and have a putative duration of 1+2+1=4 (as does रिसन्ति, which is also laghu-guru-laghu, while रिसति is laghu-laghu-laghu has a duration of 3). And so I do claim that रिसा and रिसान् have the same duration — it certainly sounds like that, to my ear, that if any duration is added by न् it is so extremely close to zero as being insignificant to count. (If this is not actually true, and my ear conditioned by convention is playing tricks on me, then yes, it would imply that the count does not accurately reflect timing — the same way रिसान अति and risānəti have different counts 6 and 5 even though pronounced the same!) In fact, to my ear, besides रिसाति and रिसान्ति having the same duration, it also sounds as if English words often have the same duration in both rhotic and non-rhotic accents: a word like (say) embargo or discarded has the same duration whether the 'r' is pronounced or not; the 'r' doesn't add to the duration. Maybe my ear is playing tricks here too. :-)

About the formal vs natural, it's certainly a plausible theory. In colloquial Kannada for instance, especially when spoken fast, many short vowels are deleted, especially word-final short vowels when they are preceded by a guru syllable and are not the end of a sentence, and also many short vowels within a word. Thus bekku (cat), may become bekk; kāḍu (forest) may become kāḍu, and kaḍalēkāyi (groundnut) may become kaḍlēkāy or even kaḷḷēkāy. And "even more colloquial" language may have even more vowels and even consonants dropped. But in formal speeches, on the news on TV/radio, and in poetry readings, all these vowels are scrupulously pronounced. By the same token, it is certainly possible/likely that something similar was the case in medieval Hindi: that Tulsidas dropped all the schwas in daily speech but meant for them to be pronounced in his poetry. :p

Such a situation is less likely with Sanskrit, though: within a few centuries after Panini gave a formal description of the natural language of his day, Sanskrit became a learned language and no longer a "natural" (प्राकृत) language, although educated people would carry out technical conversations in it, and when they did, they would use the formal (the only?) register of Sanskrit, following sandhi rules and everything. (Grammar was a very important part of the Sanskrit tradition.) In pre-Panini times of course it's even less likely: linguists agree the rules of his grammar were not simply made up, but described the natural language of the time, e.g. that the sandhi rules were the natural products of speaking the words together, etc. And if short a at the end of a word was truly completely dropped, then speaking fast would not result in the sort of रिसान + अति = रिसानाति sandhi, etc.

It may be worth it for an expert to example the intermediate Prakrit/Apabhramsha languages between Sanskrit and Hindi and see if anything can be deduced, though. For now I'm content to understand Hindi. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(One) Not annoyed, just ... vigorous :-)
(Two) You asked: is "रिसान अति" is pronounced with a longer duration than risānəti? It's not, because in normal diction रिसान अति itself is pronounced as risānəti, unless you deliberately pause between words. Look at meaningful words in Hindi: "बात असली या नहीं" is bātəslīyānəhīṅ. बात असली presents a similar scenario as रिसान अति - it's a construct that trying to tease out whether a schwa is pronounced at the termination of the first word or not. That final schwa is definitely not pronounced. It isn't bātə'əslī (that would sound really weird and kind of pompous+constipated at the same time :-) and it isn't bātāslī (which would be incomprehensible).
(Three) Just as native English speakers perceive a [p] (instead of the allophonically correct [pʰ]) in pin as a [b], often leading to caricatures of Indian English speakers as saying bin, similarly native Hindi-speakers often perceive an incorrect schwa (pronounced when it should have been deleted) as a sound akin to ā. Caricatures in Hindi media of South Indian speakers ("Malbari" in Pakistan) often center on this: bātə sounds like bātā.
(Four) Counting, ultimately, has an inherent bogusness to it because humans have the ability to stretch/shrink and fit things. That is my point, actually. You're basically agreeing with it. There is no way that रिसा and रिसान् can have the same duration unless you shrink the duration of रिसा in the second word (similar to bee and bean in English). Hindi and Sanskrit counting differ on this score, but both have this essential bogusness built into them. Sorry if that sounds sacrilegious :-)
(Five) My schwa addition hypothesis fits the IE family better than schwa deletion as far as I can tell. How can such a large majority of IE languages lack these schwas consistently across thousands of miles, except for Classical Sanskrit and some languages on the IE-periphery (e.g. Bengali)? Various Sanskrit dialects were once natural speech. It's entirely possible that they lacked many schwas which were formally injected into Classical Sanskrit for reasons of seeking "perfect matching" between writing, speech and poetry. This is speculative, of course, and I have zero intent of putting anything except hard-referenced material in articles. However, I'd like to hear any contesting hypotheses from you that are better than mine :-)
(Six) Schwa deletion rules have not completely been formalized. There is some irregularity to them. It could be that Panini was natural in a subset, but then generalized. BTW, interesting but possibly unrelated point: people in North India usually read Sanskrit with Hindi's schwa deletion rules (or at least partial application of them).
(Seven) Not a clincher by any means but we could look at the treatment of known Persian/Arabic-origin terms in Tulsi's work. For instance, Sankat Mochan has Gharib/Garib in it: काज किये बड़ देवन के तुम, वीर महाप्रभु देखि बिचारो । कौन सो संकट मोर गरीब को, जो तुमसों नहिं जात है टारो ॥ Either he's altered the pronunciation of गरीब or he's intending schwas to be dropped across the board. Again, allophony means that, if Tulsi was dropping schwas, it is quite possible he wouldn't even be consciously aware he was doing it.
(Eight) Please note that there is a difference between stretching a voiceless letter and adding a schwa to it, e.g. try this: 'nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn' is different from 'nəəəəəəəəəəəəə' (the first doesn't really have a vowel).
(Nine) Songs are quite interesting in how they mangle normal language, but I imagine they shy away from making things unintelligible. They probably reveal some linguistic boundaries of what is and isn't permissible - even in accented renditions of a language. Hindi songs can take a lot of liberties, but take a listen to Ye Shaam mastani (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sZg4EUB3IM). shāmməstānī, and not shāməməstānī; similarly dōrkoī (dor koi kheenchey), and not dōrəkoī. shāməməstānī, to most Hindi-speakers would sound like a woman called Sh(y)āmā being referred to. dōrəkoī sounds like dōrākoī, which would still be comprehensible to Hindi-speakers (because dōrā is a legit variant of dōr), but the song would change sense a bit: a dōr is a narrow string while a dōrā is a fatter string. Punjabi speakers will likely conflate dōrəkoī to mean "some deaf guy" (dōrā means deaf in Punjabi and Haryanvi) and find it funny. It may be worth reading Tulsi to see if similar conflations and confusions occur. I am pretty sure they will. This is likely context specific in song too - schwas may be okay as a rhyming device when they do not cause world meanings to alter. I imagine such insertions happen in several languages. Guess: Any consonant can be in need of stretching in a song. Some consonants can be crooned without schwas ('nnnnnnnnn', 'mmmmmmmmmm', 'rrrrrrrrrrrr') and some cannot ('gggggg', 'chchchchch', 'ttttttt' aren't doable) - maybe a fricative vs plosive thing. The latter probably see schwas inserted to make them stretch in song. So words that end in 'r' like 'pyar' probably see more frequent uses like 'pyarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' and words that end in 't' like 'rut' (season) probably see croons that go 'rutəəəəəəəəəəəəə' :-) It would be fantastic to see some research on this. --Hunnjazal (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delay. I was out of town, and didn't get back to Wikipedia. I'll catch up with some stuff first, and then reply here. :-) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's pertinent to this discussion, but spoken Russian reduces "a" and "o" to schwas in unstressed syllables, at least the most standard accent (see Vowel reduction in Russian). Apparently Slavic languages are lumped with Indo-Aryan languages in the "satem" group of the Centum-satem isogloss, versus the Centums (Germanic, Greek and Latin-based). On the other hand, you can easily find instances of reduction to schwas in English too. Some say "Āmericā" while others say "America". Wish I knew a few non-IE languages! Perhaps it's only the universal result of lazy mouths. LADave (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages colloquially do this a lot also. They eliminate schwas (including leading ones) and short vowels and turn o/aa/u into schwas. Asmanjas becomes 'smanjas. Iftikhar becomes Ift'khar. Havala becomes H'vala. Kokila becomes Kok'la. Romance becomes rəmance. Police sounds like Poləs or even Pulls. This is a bit different from the formalized schwa deletion though, in that Asmanjas, Iftikhar, Havala, etc are regarded as legit pronunciations, whereas failing to delete a schwa that should be deleted is formally regarded as incorrect pronunciation. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples wouldn't be out of place in american English or in Russian either. We (americans) also drop vowels, and it's usually taken as a sign of poor education. As is poor spelling.

Interestingly, in adding place names in Devanagari to WP articles about Nepal, I'm coming across spelling inconsistencies in up to half the words. Confusion between व and ब​ is especially common. Also अं अँ अन् and अम्. ञ and न. Viramas (halants) are almost nonexistent, although the majority of Nepali words drop final (implicit) अ. LADave (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunnjazal,

Could you fix the IPA at Salimuzzaman Siddiqui and Raziuddin Siddiqui? They both have IPA-en templates, but are obviously meant to be Urdu.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, done. --Hunnjazal (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hunnjazal! I noticed your edits to the transliteration on Hindi-Urdu. I don't disagree that IAST may not be the best transliteration scheme, but which scheme did you replace it with? Thanks, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 02:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a modification of IAST to prevent incorrect renderings. For instance, ष and श distinctions do not exist in Hindi. They are both rendered as ś, which is the English sh, so that is the correct transliteration. IAST is not only not the best scheme. It is actually wrong for Hindi. I am open to anything here, as long as it isn't wrong. Other examples include हैं. This is rendered in Perso-Arabic as ہیں. Bizarrely, ہیں is rendered as haiṇ whereas हैं is rendered as haiṃ (in IAST). It's the exact same word! Again, in this case, IAST is wrong, of course. As far as I can tell, using IAST for Hindi is basically in violation of WP:SYNTH (Sanskrit uses Nagri, Hindi uses Nagri, Sanskrit uses IAST, Therefore Hindi must also use IAST). Also, there was an apples-oranges phenomenon happening. Bhaichara occurs in both the formalized Urdu and Hindi versions. Yet 'ch' was rendered as 'ch' in Urdu and 'c' in Hindi. This is silly in a set of sentences meant for comparison. I standardized on 'ch'. --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently we have you to thank more than any other individual for the Adivasi article. Why it is still rated "start-class" is a complete mystery to me!

Nepal also uses this term, as well as जनजाति. Nepal has a large number of groups, at least in proportion to population. If languages are an indicator, with less than 3% of India's population Nepal has over 100 languages compared to India's 1,652. So Nepal's ratio of population to languages is about 300,000:1 vs. India's 600,000:1, suggesting Nepal's incidence of adivasi status might be 2x India's.

There is nothing like the India-oriented Adivasi article for Nepal, although there is are some good articles about individual "tribes". The lack of an umbrella article for Nepal seems unfortunate because adivasi grievances against the Shah regime probably were a dominant cause of the 1996-2006 civil war, and are still unresolved. If only I were fully qualified to remedy this! Unfortunately my experience is limited to a handful of districts, mainly in what they call the "middle west" from Pokhara to Pyuthan. Anyhow there is the hope that getting started will motivate others.

I just barely began incorporating Nepal material into the present article when I realized I could not continue without a major re-write bordering on butchery. The biggest problem I saw was that adivasi status is defined within national and local political contexts. In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma there was the more or less shared pre-colonial=>East India Company=>High Raj progression with (adivasi) policies perhaps only diverging after independence. Then there are the buffer states: Afghanistan, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan. Little if any interference in adivasi matters by the British or any other colonial power, leaving things up to different national politics and histories.

Otherwise a unified article seemed to make sense because national boundaries didn't seem to coincide with anthropological changes in adivasis. For example if you showed the photo of the Khond woman to any Nepali, they would have no trouble recognizing her as a Tharu from Nepal's Terai!

Instead it might be better to retitle the existing article something like "Adivasi (India)" and write a parallel article "Janajati" or "Adivasi (Nepal)", plus a disambiguation page -- not sure how it would be titled if it (potentially) covered all of South Asia.

So what do you think of this? LADave (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... tough one LADave. Janjati simply means tribe in Hindi and other languages. I guess in sanskrit it simply means "type/group/race of man". So, technically, any tribe can be called a Janjati including the Masai and the Sioux. Is it different in Nepal? I can speak some Nepali so can look into literature refs if you'd like me to - just did some searches and I see आदिवासी जनजाति in conjunction pretty often - this makes sense ("aboriginal tribes"). I definitely think there should be a dedicated article for Adivasis of Nepal. Maybe the current article should become Adivasis of India and these should be an Adivasi disambig page? Alternatively if Janjati is a more prevalent word, you could begin an article called "Janjatis of Nepal" and put a flag on top of the Adivasi article. That way you can also add a section called "Adivasis of Nepal" inside the Adivasi article, and stick in a main article tag on top of that section. Make a proposal on the talk page and see what people think. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same meaning in Nepali. Literally जन is a man or person. For example in enumerating people you'd say "तिन जना मान्छे" (three persons), but you'd say "तिन योटा किताब​" or maybe that should be "...किताबहरु" (three books). ​By common usage, you certainly could translate "janajati" as "tribe", and your analogy with Sioux or Masai works perfectly.

Does आदिवासी literally mean "first inhabitant"? If that's right, it's more like "aboriginal". In English we might assume Tharus in the Terai are aboriginal because they have been there long enough to have evolved genetic resistance to Malaria. I might not call Magars and Gurungs in the hills aboriginal because of the sense that they originally came from somewhere else, from the north or east. Just as American Indians are tribal, but maybe not aboriginal since they came from Asia a mere 10,000 years ago, whereas humans have lived in South Asia considerably longer than that. "Native" Australians are definitely aboriginal because they seem to have gotten there something like 30 or 50,000 years ago and not to have gotten beyond hunting and gathering.

Nevertheless I think Nepal's political discussions revolving around janajatis are somewhat different than they would be in India. Probably they became marginalized (politically) more recently than in (most of) India. In the wake of the 1996-2006 civil war, I think Nepali janajatis have a great sense of urgency. That they are waking up from years of being in a political coma and have to get busy *right now*. In India, maybe dalit and caste politics go back to Independence, or even the Raj so they are somewhat mature. But then there's the insurgency in the northeast, Orissa, etc. I don't know much about this, but it sounds somewhat like Nepal.

Anyhow, I appreciate your encouragement to start an article about janajatis and adhivasis in Nepal. It definitely goes on my short list. LADave (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunnjazal, good job on the article; it seems pretty good. However, I'm wondering where exactly did you get the scheme charts for Hunterian. The "Hunterian with diacritics" seems a little dubious, since it seems from the article that it was never really standardized. Which source did you use for it? Thanks, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 23:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that this link has a full Hunterian chart: [1]. I will update the article from it; also, if Hunterian with diacritics doesn't have a source, we should just probably replace it with the comparison for another scheme. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunterian evolved with time, including by Hunter himself. You can see him making concessions to bring more people under the tent. So he added diacritics himself - some became widespread and the others not (he even had two and three dot diacritics). I have added more refs in so you can go see where some of the proposals came from - I will add even more. Chh is common for छ, but alternatives like cẖ and čh have been suggested - I think to disambiguate sequences like बचहा (bachhā, meaningless word) and बछा (also bachhā unless you do bačhā or bacẖa). I definitely think you should adopt diacritic conventions in your proposed transliteration scheme. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that remains is the fact that the "Hunterian with diacritics" chart lacks a unified standard. There's even an inconsistency with your chart using n for retroflex n, while the picture has n w/dot underneath. (Where did you get this idea? A dot underneath a consonant has been almost universally used in Indic transliteration to signify retroflex.) You'll have to remove the chart itself unless there's a +diacritic standard for Hunterian, otherwise you'll need to include all variants (and not pick and choose them yourself) and cite where every variant diacriticized letter comes from, if they don't all come from a single system in a single source. The best way to do this imo would be to remove the +diacritics chart and just explain the existence of diacritics in a section. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 03:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not necessarily. It would be just as valid to list all variants we run into in that column along with refs. That's actually a pretty good approach come to think of it. I got n with undermacron from one of these books. I'll find it I am sure or will replace with everything that I do find. There is no diacritic standard for Hunterian afaik because the Indian govt hasn't approved it (I note this pretty explicitly in the article). --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool, it seems like you did a good job on this article! ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 22:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Still needs more work of course. One big problem is unicode limitations. So, some schemes represent zuad/zoy with a z and two dots under it. Trying to figure this out short of putting pics in :( I get the sense that the Bengali transliteration also can be de-ORed, i.e. almost the entire Wiki scheme will be preserved and it will not be OR or arguably not be OR. --Hunnjazal (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered the same problem with the doubly dotted z. I've suspending trying to formulate a HU transcription though, for now. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 01:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll let you know if I manage to figure this out. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. In the table of consonants at Hunterian, at ग़ you comment that g with macron below is unavailable in Unicode. How does “g͟h” look to you? It looks very good on my system, and seems to be a proper use of Combining Double Macron Below (U+035F), which I placed between ordinary g and h. I’d recommend it for the representation of ख़ as k͟h as well. MJ (t • c) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks superb! I will put both of them in right away - thank you MJ! --Hunnjazal (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use Wikipedia to prove a point; first of all, dictionaries are sufficient evidence for the existence of shwa epenthesis, as long as most of them agree. For antaaksh(a)ri, I'm pretty sure the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary would have marked it; I'll have to check in a week when I have access to it. Once again, its pronunciation was not the reason for the rename, which was simply a matter of common spelling. Second of all, we still need to find a good source on shwa epenthesis in Hindi, which shouldn't be too hard. It does not by any means need to provide the specific words we are having issues about, never did I say that. It simply needs to be able to account for all the instances of possible vowel insertion. And your revert was in bad faith -- you said yourself that the dictionaries provided the word in the way I edited it to, and plus, you did not let me respond before you reverted. Additionally, the dictionary of the link you provided contains evidence against your change, where it clearly puts the pronunciation as /janmajat, whether or not it's reliable. [2] I would suggest you remove your revert to show good faith, but by not I don't mind if you don't; I'll still provide the evidence and some dictionaries all the same. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely *not* using Wikipedia to make a point and resent this charge because it is simply untrue. This is the second time you've done this simply because I don't agree with you without taking the time to understand the point I am making. Once again I must ask you to assume good faith. This *is* in fact a situation which is schwa-optional, i.e. no change was needed. In that same source, you find both spellings (see the link I gave). This will also be true of dictionaries: http://books.google.com/books?id=yYCd6MhWu1wC&pg=PA956 (Umberto Nardella, left hand bottom of the page). However, Antakshri is *not* a place that is schwa-optional, i.e. it must be deleted. Janmajat and Janmjat are both correct. In fact, the most common pronunciation among Hindi speakers would be Janam.Jat, but that is regarded as a colloquialism. This is a perfectly good reference and I must ask you to prove with a reference that janmjat is invalid before reverting my edit. I know that you are incorrect in this and won't be able to. The way I see it your lack of understanding of how schwa operates in Hindi is leading you to make a pattern of changes which is flawed. Essentially, you're trying to make Hindi follow a Bengali pattern without realizing it. But these languages are different and sound different. You yourself admit in the Hindi wikipedia that your knowledge of Hindi is limited. BTW if you Google janmjat -janmajay -janmjay - caution: lots of shady content you will see an overwhelming number of Hindi pages written in Roman script as opposed to English references. This is because Hindi speakers will have a natural tendency to favor Janamjat and Janmjat/Janmjaat. I also stand corrected on Marathi (I know Marathi and Bengali like you know Hindi to be honest so am bound to make the kinds of errors you make with Hindi in reverse with them) - there are several Romanized Marathi pages with Janmjat as well. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I want to say. I don't know if you are aware of this or not. You are quick to take offense at even small disagreements but seem totally comfortable hurling some major charges. This is inappropriate. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my claims. You reverted my change to yours, while stating yourself that my change was equally acceptable. This is a minor issue, so I will not attempt to argue lengthily on this. However, your timing and choice to bring up my statements about my non-perfect Hindi capabilities, which you have repeatedly reminded me about, is clearly in bad faith, as well; I do not have the option of assuming good faith if you bring this up very often. Also, Your logic here: "I must ask you to prove with a reference that janmjat is invalid before reverting my edit" confounds me; why can't I have asked you to do the same for janmajaat after you reverted? Because you have more authority on this, as my Hindi level is below yours? Seriously, you've crossed the line. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 05:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this bad faith in *any* way? If I didn't approach things with good faith, I'd be saying right now that all this talk about "having bad faith" and "disrupting wikipedia" is an attempt to use policy to browbeat me into going silent on obvious errors on your part. I find that you get into disruptive conversations on Hindi where your judgment is flawed and this bogs and slows things down. You find no such issues in Bengali where it is not - you're fine to go even with OR by your own admission there. You wanted ISO for Hindi but are unwilling to go with ISO for Bengali. You yourself said ISO is your favored scheme for Indic scripts. So why aren't you over there changing Bangla to Bamla? It's fine for you to use native knowledge and it is not fine for me? This is unacceptable. It is nothing to do with authority. It has everything to do with making systematic mistakes. Also, I just checked my copy of Oxford Hindi-English. It lists जन्म as janm - just like a native Hindi speaker would say it. It does not provide romanization for जन्मजात, but it's obviously going to be janmjat. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So our disagreement on this issue barely leads to any significant affect on Wikipedia article content. However, vowel epenthesis is indeed an interesting topic that is addressed in several Hindi-related articles. Let's get some opinion of scholars on this topic; I know that MacGregor states in the intro to the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary that a "weakened" schwa exists, which he marks as <ă> in his transcription; unfortunately, he doesn't transcribe "compounds" like antakshari or janmajat, but he states clearly that shwa can be pronounced even though it's unnaturally in Hindi, such as 'vyavăhār', which according to Hindi schwa epenthesis patterns would be vyavhār(xi). Conversely, some schwa's in Sanskrit, like the word sahayoga, are transcribed by MacGregor as sahyog, not sahăyog; therefore, this Sanskritic schwa (all the above words are sanskrit borrowings) seem to be lexically marked, thus breaking Hindi rules (meaning that it's pronounced this way by Hindi speakers but it doesn't fit general patterns in Hindi). I'm not sure what Masica or Shapiro (who wrote descriptions of Hindi) said about this, but I'll check. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 06:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Oxford and it clearly listed जन्म as janm. So now, you want to stall by getting "opinions". Would you mind sharing under which Hindi phonology rules does जन्म = janm + जात = jaat possibly become janmajat? This is clearly a stall. You were wrong (without realizing it). Now you know you are wrong but are stalling for further opinions. I told you already that this word is pronounced both ways because schwa deletion is optional in this situation. People from Eastern regions (Bihari language influenced) tend to say janma but in Delhi it will usually be janm. This is serious overreach on your part. Please go and learn Hindi a bit better and then contribute - especially in this linguistic issues. Note I never said you cannot ever contribute in this area, but I wouldn't set out and start arguing with people in Bengali language based on Hindi rules without knowing what I am talking about for Bengali. Please extend the same courtesy to others here. Sanskrit sahayoga *is* sahyog in Hindi (the dictionary says sah-yog, which is correct). Here syncope is *non* optional. Of course, Bengalis might do sahayog as you are veering towards doing. Your approach is correct for Sanskrit but is dead-wrong for Hindi. I appeal to you to stop being obstructionist, which is what your actions are amounting to now. Your edits in such situations are annoying because they are wrong, and repeatedly so. I hope you can appreciate that this can be aggravating for others. If I wrote in Solar System (with absolute, lily-white intent), and said stuff like "Saturn is a mid-sized star, Haley's comet is a planet visible from the Earth every 75 years or so" - how should others react if I bogged them down with argument when they tried to correct me? What if I was being disruptive and they told me to please read up and familiarize myself with this stuff and recuse myself until I did. Is this bad faith on their part? I don't think so at all. This is exactly how it sometimes feels discussing these things with you. You are more or less pure of intent (except this one last stall, which is really not on) but just don't know what you don't know. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I may have found the source of this belief of yours - "Conversely, some schwa's in Sanskrit, like the word sahayoga, are transcribed by MacGregor as sahyog, not sahăyog; therefore, this Sanskritic schwa (all the above words are sanskrit borrowings) seem to be lexically marked, thus breaking Hindi rules (meaning that it's pronounced this way by Hindi speakers but it doesn't fit general patterns in Hindi)." From Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Indian Morphology - "The compound words derived from native words of Bengali show greater tendency towards {a} deletion than those derived from Sanskrit." Sigh! Hindi does not make these distinctions, except for really artificial sounding insistence on preserving Arabic/Persian word forms by *some* Urdu speakers, but I imagine this will turn into yet another discussion where you'll insist on believing Hindi is somehow like Bengali in this respect (again with pure intent and poor knowledge). Look, every language has preferred syllable structures. When it imports words that violate the preferred structures it "repairs them". This is the nature of prosodic structures in languages. It is the meter for the language. Koryak likes CVC - and will introduce schwas to make that happen. Hindi despises VCəCV and likes VCCV (but not VCCə) and CVCVC very much. With CCVC or CVCC it tends to geminate or make them CVCVC by introducing schwas - गर्म becomes गरम or garm: (gemination). Similarly, जन्म becomes जनम or janm: - at least in Standard Hindi (Delhi environs). In Bihari, it's not the same - but then people debate whether Bihari is Hindi at all. Try any construction and test it out - पालक is paalak (CVCVC, nice schwa in there). पालकी is CVCəCV and Hindi attacks the VCəCV part of it immediately - it becomes pal-ki. मदन is cvcvc - fine, two schwas. आमदन is VCəCVC - and that middle ə is going to be killed. So, आमदन becomes aam-dan. अन्ताक्षर is no problem: antaakshar (VCCVCəC) - that medial schwa is happily left alone. But add a vowel to the end - अन्ताक्षरी - and you get VCCVCəCV, so the VCəCV is immediately attacked and becomes antaaksh-ri. This sort of thing gives Hindi its distinct music from Bengali which is clearly far more tolerant of medial schwas and perhaps differentiates Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit words. There are exceptions and I'll look at them, but that's a second order issue. You should really let Hindi be Hindi. Saturn is not a star :-) --Hunnjazal (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are being rude to me by straight-out telling me to go learn Hindi better simply because our opinions differ. Let me get some thigns clear, since my comments were misinterpreted by you. Why bring up Bengali? We are talking about Hindi here.... Anyways, of course sahyog is pronounced sah-yog by basically all Standard Hindi speakers; when I talked about "Sanskritic schwa.... lexically marked", I'm referring to the fact that vyavahaar, which Hindi speakers would quite normally pronounce as vya-va-haar (3 syllables), breaks the general schwa syncope rules of Hindi (and sounds awkward for being a Hindi word), since vyav-haar would be expected. (don't you agree?) Therefore, all I'm doing is trying to make it clear to you that no matter your personal pronunciation of a certain word or your personal belief on what the "rules" are, schwa syncope is not a simple, 100% rule-generated phenomenon and that marked exceptions do exist, as do optional and speaker-dependent cases. Also, /ksh/ is CC, not C, in your example of antaaksh(a)ri. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, since you're dwelling on the 'janm' example, [dʒənm] isn't even a legal utterance in Hindi, by which would involve saying [n] and [m] one after another without any vowel sound in between and without a final schwa sound. Speakers would almost always pronounce it [dʒənəm] like in the word janamdin, not jan-ma-din as its "correct" spelling would imply). This shows the pedanticness of some dictionaries, which insist upon etymologically correct <janm>, which is a mixture of the fact that in Sanskrit n and m should be connected while in Hindi, final schwa is heard for this word precisely because janm becomes janam. If the [nm] sequence were to be preserved, Hindi would invariable have [dʒənmə], since [nm] is not a finally legal cluster. Otherwise maybe some speakers assimilate the /n/ to [m] (which is standard in Punjabi, but definitely not for Hindi) to produce [dʒəmm(ə)], but I don't think this has much leverage, if any. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 11:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basawala, please get a slightly thicker skin. I'm being perfectly polite to you. You're consistently wrong and disruptively argumentative about it. There's more right here. You say - "[dʒənm] isn't even a legal utterance in Hindi" - where in the world would you get this from? It's a completely random assertion made by someone who *clearly* has some unfamiliarity with the language. This is exactly like someone jumping into Solar System and saying - "Saturn is a star." Now what do you want me to do? It's bizarre, it's ridiculous, it's completely pulled out of thin air and it is totally, utterly, absolutely wrong. Why you do these things beats me - it really does. Please at least try just once to look at it from my point of view. You argue with me about something and throw a book at me ("I will check Oxford!"). Then you open the book and it totally supports me. Now you turn around and accuse your own book of being "pedantic". You reject dictionaries as authoritative sources of pronunciation. You reject the perspective of native speakers. Virtually every one of the rules you cite to support you turns out - consistently, verifiably and with references - to apply to Bengali and not to Hindi, whether it is the ड़/ड question, whether it is Sanskrit-origin schwas, or whatever. What do you want me to do? How do I deal with this - except to repeat myself and say "that seems to be from Bengali again - you don't know Hindi - please learn some more before you get involved in these things because you become disruptive and make incorrect edits." I also know you make lots of other contributions to Wikipedia which are very valuable (and I *do* value them). So, I try and be direct and appeal to you. You have a righteousness about Hindi which I think comes from you feeling that you "know" the language, when actually you don't know it to the degree you think you do. In Hindi-Urdu there is a proverb imported directly from Persian "Neem hakeem, khatra-e-jaan" (basically, half-knowledge is the deadlier than no knowledge - all Hindi-speakers virtually universally know this, maybe you do too - it's usually enough to just say "neem hakeem"). It really reminds me of Indians who speak English insisting that the difference between "v" and "w" in English is rubbish, and doesn't exist. Okay, let's look at a few things (I am educating you here, this stuff should be obvious to a native speaker) -

• व्यवहार - think about it for a second. That second व has free allophony between [v], [ʋ], [w]. When it's a [v], people absolutely do pronounce it as /vjəv'haːr/ with total deletion of the medial schwa (I am surprised you've never heard this!). When it's a glide, then the schwa reappears because that sound resembles a vowel, so with [w], it's a soft schwa. It's amazing Oxford has managed to capture this and clearly mark it as an optional soft schwa (ă) - that is absolutely correct and new learners would be well-advised to heed it. In fact, there's an additional thing that happens too sometimes when the entire string of /əwă/ vowel+glide sounds gets collapsed into a single vowel : /vjəwăhaːr/ -> /vjoːhaːr/ - this ("vyohaar") is extremely common in colloquial Hindi. This is no violation of any rule. Again, you saw a case of pneumonia and identified it as arthritis. This is why I am asking you to cease practicing medicine without a degree :-).
• Your assertion: "Hindi would invariable have [dʒənmə], since [nm] is not a finally legal cluster" is totally random (or based on some half-understood thing pried out of context and being force-fitted here). It is totally and verifiably wrong that "Hindi would invariably have [dʒənmə]."" Dictionaries are telling you that you are wrong, a native speaker is telling you that you are wrong, yet you are adamant with zero-proof that this is right. Based on what? Where are you getting this absolute conviction that Hindi speakers won't say [dʒənm] (which they absolutely do BTW - millions of people every day). How do I deal with this? Seriously? Does nothing about your approach here strike you as inappropriate? This made me laugh - "[dʒənm] ... would involve saying [n] and [m] one after another without any vowel sound in between and without a final schwa sound." Yes, indeed, [dʒənm] does involve saying [n] and [m] one after another without any vowel sound in between and without a final schwa sound :-) It's mystifying why pronouncing [n] and [m] in succession feel like such a miracle to you. Is there something about modern-day human physiology that prohibits this because, if there is, HU-speakers have managed to transcend it! They say this cluster and (CVCC) clusters like this all the time - "narm", "krishn", "bazm", "jashn", "rasm", "zulm". All have optional CVCəC forms also (which Hindi loves), as I have noted several times - but they are considered to be colloquial: if you use them, say, as a student in a school setting in Delhi environs, you will be stopped and corrected from "krishan" to "krishn," "janam" to "janm" and "dharam" to "dharm". I cannot fully fathom why this is proving so difficult for you to accept but the most likely explanation is that it is violating some deep-seated linguistic rule from a different language that you have unconsciously being applying to Hindi for a long time or you have become used to a dialect of Hindi which is distinct from Standard Hindi and likely a branch of or deeply influenced by a far Eastern Hindi or Bihari dialect.
• You said "ksh is CC." Well, yes and no. It's a compound consonant and is basically treated like a single consonant in Hindi speech. It like x (ks) in English. What is box to you? CVC or CVCC. You could make either case, I suppose, but most often it is regarded as CVC. I guess you could make the same point with ख (kh) or ज्ञ (gy).
• Your observation on Punjabi is completely incorrect. Punjabi speakers have a mild tendency to kill consonants and over-geminate the final consonant in such situations which is a very distinct preference from Hindi. So, जन्म becomes जम्म /dʒəmm/. Or they do the schwa insertion and make it जनम /dʒənəm/. I have never heard a Punjabi speaker say /dʒənm/ - where did you get this from? It's wrong. In fact, if anyone speaks Punjabi with this, it will come across as a heavy HU-accent.

Welcome back, you were gone for a bit there. I really do want to bury the hatchet with you, but you really have to hold your peace and listen a bit more in some situations. Not all critiques are personal attacks. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you speak Kashmiri natively. Currently, the MediaWiki software has poor support for Kashmiri and the Kashmiri Wikipedia has no community (probably due to the script issues). I'd like to ask if you are interested in translating a bit of the MediaWiki interface into Kashmiri. If so, please say in which scripts you are able to translate (and which script should be the default). I also contacted other Wikipedia editors who indicated they speak Kashmiri. Thank you, SPQRobin (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. The other people I contacted did not reply (so far at least). If you (or someone else) still want to translate the interface, you can go to http://translatewiki.net/ or contact me again. I have now split the MediaWiki localisation into a Perso-Arabic and Devanagari file (with the former as default). As for the content of the Kashmiri Wikipedia, for some languages there is a conversion script that converts the content from one script to the other, but it may be difficult to create for Kashmiri. SPQRobin (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry it says "Most modern songwriters and poets have not released their works under an open content license and therefore their inclusion in Wikipedia violates their copyright. Copyright usually expires 70 years after the author's death (see below)." One has to be careful with lyrics. Several Hindi film lyrics websites were issued cease and desist letters for posting translations only as the music companies claimed they owned the rights to the translations as well. 72.152.153.21 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think you're missing it by a mile but I am not highly motivated to get into an edit war. This is one small section of the song to illustrate the precise topics being discussed in the section. That is totally legit. Obviously, you cannot post the lyrics to the entire song or translate the entire song. That would be like randomly picking up an English book, translating it to Urdu and start selling it on your own. You can't do that. However, this is *totally* different and you're missing that point entirely. Technically, even the title of the song is copyrighted - so realize that even in the mere act of creating an article on any song, you're using copyrighted material. Everytime you open your mouth to say the name of a song or hum a paragraph to someone else to remind him/her about it, you're using copyrighted material. However, this is covered under de minimis. There are exceptions provided for these exact things in copyright law. Second, you're either a regular user not logged in (which is against policy because you're technically flirting with being a sock-puppet, i.e. using multiple disconnected identities) or you're a new user focused on policing instead of content creation - which ain't healthy. Either way, please change your approach. --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are familiar with Kashmir-related topics. If you are interested, I invite you to become a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Azad Kashmir, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir or Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan. Mar4d (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI Hunnajazal if i m right u have contributed in indus valley article so would u tell me that which civilisation was more advanced harappan or aryan civilisation? i need ur immediate help now pls do fast !!!!!!!!!!!.Angela21124 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hunnjazal! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

You've indicated that you speak Punjabi. Would you mind taking a look at a question on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hindi_.26_Punjabi_Names_for_Mount_Everest? Thanks a lot. Buddy431 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's an awesome reply. I don't hand out barnstars, but if I did, I'd totally give you one. You're probably going to get a note on your talkpage now whenever a question about southern Asian languages comes up. Buddy431 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Hunnjazal, could you please have a look at this section? To me it does not seem entirely accurate. An IP Address noted this as well, here. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 18:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a message for u at article's talk page [3]. 1.23.133.132 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed your comments on allophones. I'm a native speaker of English who studied linguistics and cannot really hear the difference between aspirated and not consonants. This has made teaching Koreans when to say which, since their language clearly distinguishes them, difficult. Of course, it also made problems in learning Korean [especially since Korean also has tenseness/doubling as a phonemic factor, hence three kinds of p and some others], though now I can say them correctly. On the other hand, I often cannot hear the difference in normal speech [the Korean responding by saying, 'What!!!???!!!?? You can't hear the difference between PPPPPPP and [p]?' Of course, I can: but no one says an extremely aspirated P or a barely audible P in normal speech. And, of course, there is something of the same problem in reverse with R and L. This all gets compounded by real speech situations. I had one student who wanted help with her Rs. So we worked on it, and she quickly got every R and L right . . . in the controlled teaching setting. As she left, she said something like, 'Thanks. See you rater.'Kdammers (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Western Uttar Pradesh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to NH 2, Rampur, NH 3 and Ghaziabad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoona Begum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam Hunnjazal, I hope you are doing well. Please correct the spelling of Ashfaqulla Khan on Hindi Wikipedia. The proper spelling should be अशफ़ाक़ुल्ला ख़ान. Khuda hafiz, Anupam^Talk 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for pointing it out. --Hunnjazal (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! However, the word "Khān" is still spelled incorrectly. It should read ख़ान rather than ख़ाँ. In Urdu, the equivalent of ख़ान is خان while the equivalent of ख़ाँ is خاں. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chukar Partridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian mythology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:MusikAnimal#Copyrights issue. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

१४-१५ फरवरी को हम सब लोग दिल्ली में मिल रहे हैं। आपकी प्रतीक्षा है। दर्शन अवश्य दें।

http://hi.wikipedia.org/s/814v

--Manoj Khurana (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muhammad al-Jibaly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not seem notable on google news and books. It does not meet WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mbcap (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunnjazal, Thanks for adding the map legend color boxes with descriptions onto the map body. It makes it easier to compare with the actual map. In the file-NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NorthIndiaClimateKoppen.png some corrections are needed.Problem seems to be, similar shades of a color are hard to differentiate.

• 1. Peninsular Indian country -has 2 blue colors. The west coast strip of dark blue color needs to be changed to Tropical monsoon with Am code. (Not Aw here). Map with only Am code is here
• 2. Peninsular Indian country- rest of (lighter) blue color is Tropical savanna (wet & dry) with Aw code. map with only Aw code is here (There needs to be no Dfb code--continental here in peninsular Indian country).
• 3. North west India- the hot semi arid zone-light brownish yellow color-the code needs to be BSh. Map with only code BSh is here( not again BWh, which is already there for the nearby hot desert zone-red color).
• 4. In the northern most tip of India-high mountains-Himalayas-the dark purple thin strip- it is very difficult to make out, whether it is Dsa or Dsb or Dsc, because it is such a thin strip. May be it is Dsb, map given here with Dsa & Dsb(no Dsc).
• 5.May be listing the color boxes in the usual order, A then B then C, order is a better way, so that the blue colors in A code come next to each other, while listing.

Thanks, by user 2know4power (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hunnjazal. I just read your discussion with Bodhidharma7 at Talk:Peopling of India#Dravidian-speakers - Dravidian-speakers are Australoid, not Caucasoid. I totally agree with you. See also Dravidian languages#Dravidian migrations, Indo-Aryan migration theory#Genetics, and Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Where are the ANI-loans? further forward. It's indeed pretty obvious:

• ~50,000 YA split between Asians and Eurasiana (ASI-ANI) (Dolgin on Reich 2009)
• ~45,000 YA split between EGH (European Gather-Hunteres) and EF (Early Farmers)/CGH (Caucasian Gather-Hunterers) (Jones 2015)
• ~25,000 YA split (Jones 2015) between CGH (contributed to IE) and EF (contributed to Dravidians)
• ca. 5,000 YA Dravidians into northern India, bringing with them farming (MacAlpin, Renfrew, Cavalli-Sforza), Dravidian language, R1a (Underhill 2014) and lactose-tolerance (Gallego Romero 2011; according to Allentoft Indo-Europeans were lactose-intolerant)
• 2,600 BCE onset Harappan civilisation; Dravidian speaking (Asko Parpola); rapid growth of population due to farming (Bellwood & Oxenham)
• 2,200 BCE onset colonisation of southern India by Dravidians over land (Deccan plateau) and over sea (westcoast)(sea-farers and traders!); admixture and language shift (Palanichamy 2015)
• 1,900 decline of Harappan cities, c.q. relocation
• ca. 1,800-1,600 BCE onset Indo-European migrations; Dravidian loans into Rig Veda, ergo, they were the ANI, ergo the Dravidians were Eurasian
• ca. 1,200 BCE rise of Kuru Kingdom (Witzel); genetically mix of Harappans and Indo-Aryans; culturally mix of Harappan remains and Indo-European language and religion; start of Sanskritization (Witzel); start of second wave of admixture and language shift (Moorjani 2013: two waves of admixture; Palanichamy 2015: Indo-Europenas contributed to already existing stratification, and mixed with the higher strata)
• ca. 100 CE enforcement of caste endogamy

Once you see, it's crystal clear. I saw it, you saw it, so those geneticists are seeing it too. We can wait for a theoretical overview with the same story to be published pretty soon, I hope; the story is just waiting to be told. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, Joshua. I am reading your posts in the comments sections and agree totally with your perspective! Best --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hunnjazal, Thanks for all the great work you do for WP. Could you please take a look at this: audio files for 'stop consonants' in Hindi pronunciation, can they be used for the pronunciation of 'stop consonants' in Sanskrit too?. May be you could reply there at its talk page. Thanks in advance, by User 2know4power (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I will take a peek. Best --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hello Hunnjazal, Thank you very much for the great contributions (articles created) you make for Wikipedia. Your hard work for 55,800+ edits, help to make Wikipedia a veritable treasure trove. Thanks, by User 2know4power (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 2know4power!! Most kind!! --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd been to North India talk page and saw multiple times that you have anti-Bihari sentiments. Why? This page had included Bihar and MP as a part of North India because both belongs to North-Central Cultural Zone. See http://www.nczccindia.in Then what is your problem with Bihar? Do you think a sensible admin (I don't know if you are an admin or not) should be so biased and full of hatred against one community? 103.212.156.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? I am not anti-Bihari at all. Why would I be anti-Bihari? But I don't decide Government of India definitions because, alas, for whatever reason they have not put me in charge of it all. They day they do, I promise, I will define Bihar as the only North Indian state and everything else as non-North Indian. The article explicitly says that Bihar is included in North India in many definitions. Bihar is also included in East India sometimes though. So the article simply notes this as well from verified sources. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language isolates of Europe, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Habibullah Mir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habibullah Mir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zoona Begum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoona Begum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]