Module talk:inc-translit

Hi. तुर्कमेनिस्तान. Currently an error in Turkmenistan. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. The remaining entries in CAT:E should be the same case. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 'inc' does not appear to be a good code to use in this instance, as this method of transcription is only applicable to very few Indo-Aryan languages. Module:hi-translit and individual pages are probably better. Also please make sure histories are merged when you transfer coding. Wyang (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it is applicable to Punjabi, Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati, ... --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frank. Hindi and Bengali are now working. They use different scripts. The rules also differ. Even for languages that share the same script, rules differ, like Hindi and Nepali. Well, now Marathi is not transliterated at all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Thai moved to User_talk:Wyang

Schwa deletion patterns in the various Indo-Aryan languages are not the same. See (search for 'Punjabi'). It needs to be dealt with on a language-by-language basis. For example Nepali: Module:ne-translit. Wyang (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would I be asking too much if I would like you to demonstrate how each language deals with a particular string (maybe pakaratataya) for example? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * should be "pakrattay" in Hindi, should be "pôkrôttôy" in Bengali, IMO. Bengali module got it closer than Hindi. Why does तुर्कमेनिस्तान (Hindi) work but तुर्कमेनिस्तान (Marathi) doesn't? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * : What is the pattern of sôrôbônamô > sôrbnam? --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm qualified to answer this question. I think it's better not to try to use a single script to deal with phonological phenomena in multiple languages, as there are differences and each language is already sufficiently complex by itself. We are not even sure the original script for Hindi is fully optimised yet. Wyang (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't explain exactly why but sôrôbônamô > sôrôbnam must be the right pattern for Bengali, for Hindi it would be sarabanāma > sarabnām. Note that Hindi, Bengali, etc. use consonant conjuncts (ligatures) like "र्ब" (rb) to force consonant clusters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You meant that "sôrôbônamô > sôrbnam must be the right pattern" instead? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I think there should be a vowel after "r" but it also depends on the native spellings. Ligatures or conjuncts don't have inherent vowels between them, they represent two consonants pronounced together.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * : Alright. I made a mistake, so ignore this. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Specifically, once the Hindi pattern is optimised and all the rules understood, described and implemented, it should work for all cases and no manual transliteration will be required. If extra schwa droppings were required for pronunciation purposes (in phonetic respellings), then an extra virama (्) could be added as a variant pronunciations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)