User talk:Getsnoopy

This is my talk page. Feel free to let me know your thoughts here.

Wiktionary:Votes/2021-05/Change Hindi transliteration of ऋ

Hi. I know you were encouraged to create a vote by that Beer Parlour discussion and partially I was also a party to it, but now I and a few others think that a community wide vote is not appropriate for dealing with an issue pertinent to a single language with a relatively small number of editors. Would you be willing to copy the content to Wiktionary talk:About Hindi? I do agree with the subject matter though. Be it our transliteration system of Indic languages as a wiki or how we have discussions and exchange of thoughts as a community, I have the same opinion: We can do better. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 12:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: OK, sure. I copied the content to Wiktionary talk:About Hindi. Should I delete the vote from the votes page? Getsnoopy (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's right. Thanks a lot! -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 01:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Telugu rhymes using Telugu script

Hi. I notice you are creating Telugu pages with rhymes in the Telugu script. Please don't do that. All rhymes should use IPA. Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW can you help me convert all existing Telugu rhymes to IPA? If not I will have to use a bot to remove them all. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Rhymes? I think you might've mistaken me for someone else.I don't remember doing anything with rhymes. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You created at least కొబ్బరికల్లు and కొవ్విరకల్లు with rhymes in the pronunciation. Benwing2 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Oh, I see. I guess it got created as a part of the template I was using throughout the entries I was creating. Should I remove them? Getsnoopy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:bor

I just deleted Category:Telugu terms borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, which should only be used for a case where someone sees a Proto-Indo-European term in a book and decides to use it in Telugu- that kind of thing has happened once or twice, but never with Telugu, as far as I know.

{{bor}} should only be used for a term that was directly borrowed from another language by the language of the entry. In other words, if you have a Telugu word that was borrowed from Hindi, which borrowed it from English, which inherited it from Middle English, which borrowed it from Old French, which inherited it from Latin, which borrowed it from Greek, which inherited it from Proto-Hellenic, which inherited it from Proto-Indo-European, you would use {{bor|te|hi}} for the Hindi word, and everything else would be {{der|te|[whatever]}}.

{{inh}} can only be used for a term in the parent language of the current language that was inherited into the cuurent language, the term that it was inherited from, the term that the earlier term was inherited from, etc. If there is anything except direct inheritance between the term in the entry and the term the template is used for, you would use {{der}}. For Telugu, that pretty much limits it to Proto-Dravidian and any earlier stage of Telugu that might have an etymology-only language code.

Everything except for the one permissible use of {{bor}} and the permissible uses of {{inh}} that I just mentioned would use {{der}} or {{uder}} in cases where it might be {{bor}} or {{inh}}, but you don't know.

When I say {{bor}}, that of course also includes the templates for unadapted borrowings, learned borrrowings, calques, etc.

Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sounds good; thanks for the detailed note. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Liberland module edit

Is there really enough distinct language for this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I meant for it to be a region, not for a linguistic distinction. The category page Category:en:Liberland was complaining that the label didn't exist or was mistyped. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits on नज़र

Wanted to understand your reasons for this edit [1]. Can you kindly elaborate your reasons? Siddhant (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, I feel it is pointless listing "nuqta-less" forms on every word whose standard spelling is with the nuqta since every nuqta word is often written/typed without the nuqta in modern usage. So, in a way, nuqtaless forms are not "real" alternative forms. —Svārtava · 08:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ditto to what Svartava said. Nuqtaless forms are not standard, so it's not really that it's an "alternative form" in the same way that फ़र्क़ and फ़रक़ are, where either of them is acceptable. Nuqtaless forms are basically a manifestation of linguistic laziness, so we want "nuqta-ful" forms to be discoverable from their nuqtaless counterparts, but not vice-versa. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)