Talk:انشقاق

Urdu

 * Hi and thanks for the contributions. We don't have a transliteration policy for Urdu yet but usually it follows Hindi in many original contributions as far as the consonants and most vowels are concerned but nasalised consonants match the spellings, e.g. ã, ā̃, ẽ, ĩ, ī̃, ũ, ū̃ are probably not to be used. So, it's "inśiqāq", not "ʾinšiqāq" like Arabic or "enšeqâq" like Persian would be.

The Urdu policy can be started based on Persian transliteration, which is relatively simple and Hindi transliteration for the consonants and long vowels. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oops, we do have it - Urdu transliteration but it's hardly followed and needs fixing. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Urdu does use the nūn ġunnā  to indicate final nasalization. Medially the regular  nūn can nasalize. Some dictionaries mark nasalization with the ulṭā jazam but that's not in Unicode; it looks like "^". So I think we do have a need for ã, ā̃, ẽ, ĩ, ī̃, ũ, ū̃ for Urdu.
 * IMO we should transliterate the exact same way as we do for Hindi, minus ṇ and ṣ because those aren't there in Urdu. This would facilitate an eventual merger of Hindi and Urdu. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This can be discussed but in Hindi the nasalisation can be derived from the spelling but in Urdu, it's just a vowel + "n". Also, the final long "ā" in Hindi is not necessarily a long vowel but ه or ـہ.
 * I have no strong opinion about a possible merger but I know Urdu speakers will be the first to oppose it. A huge layer of literary Sanskrit words in Hindi and Arabic/Persian in Urdu just won't have equivalents in the sister language.
 * Don't forget to romanise the vowels correctly. Short vowels in Urdu are more likely to match Arabic and Hindi, rather than Persian, so, it's "i" and "u", rather than "e" and "o", as in - "isti'āra" (Urdu),  "este’âre" (Persian). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe a merge will ever happen. It looks like because a different writing system causes literary separation, this is enough for Wiktionary (!) to treat a languoid as separate language. Look at Judeo-Arabic, Anatoli: The quotes in look like perfect Arabic, and yet “Judeo-Arabic” is treated as separate language. To show an example that is not a spoken-only dialect. Similarly, it is impracticable to merge the various Aramaics with Syriac. On the other hand, we can expect Croats to know the Cyrillic alphabet of Serbo-Croatian if they go as far as to edit Wiktionary, because the hurdles are lower. I am not a splitter but I prefer not to fight against reality.  Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 01:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that we should have a more phonetic-based transliteration system; after all, words in Urdu will be nasalized too.
 * I'm still not totally comfortable with the script so I might make some mistakes with vowels, sorry about that. I'm using Rekhta and Kitabistan's dictionary to guide me as of now.
 * If we look at reality, Hindi and Urdu are pretty much indistinguishable. As long as you say hello instead of any religious-specific greeting (salām alekūm, namaste, śat śrī akāl), people won't be able to tell if you're speaking Hindi or Urdu. And I assure you Devanagari Urdu is a thing. Urdu poetry is still very much in vogue in India, but it's often written in Devanagari. The Urdu poetry site Rekhta has options to transliterate the Arabic script to Devanagari. Mosques in India sometimes have Urdu-language signs in Devanagari as well. And I've heard that before some Sanskritized Hindi was written in the Arabic script. Let's also not forget how Bollywood films usually have titles in both Hindi and Urdu, and also how popular Bollywood in Pakistan. (And no Hindi film has Urdu subtitles)
 * I will concede written Hindi and Urdu use different scripts. But the grammar is not so different as to make them different language. The only grammatical difference is that Urdu uses the izāfat construction all the time, but there's no rule forbidding me from using it in Hindi. Yes, written Urdu draws technical vocabulary from Persian and Arabic while written Hindi draws it from Sanskrit, but that just makes them different registers of one language, not different languages. If I chose to, does that mean I'm speaking a different language from standard English? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * : Re: Urdu translit. I just gave you an important hint with my limited knowledge, so you can transliterate Urdu with a little bit more confidence, hopefully not making Urdu exactly like Hindi, especially when it's different. You don't seem to be affected. Unfortunately, 1. Urdu resources are poor, especially for pronunciation. 2. There's no definite way to transliterate Urdu with 100% certainty for many words. Lack of short vowels creates variants and incorrect pronunciations, which is also the case with Arabic and Persian. 3. Words may follow Arabic but also Persian pronunciation. Arabic vowels are not always to be guided by. Only a solid source or an educated native speaker can help in this case. 4. Consonants, on the other hand (except for nasal and silent "h") render the pronunciation better than Hindi in loanwords, considering they don't use a nuqta. And they shouldn't have overcorrections, which is the case with Hindi nuqta confusion.
 * I'm sure you will do better than me once you master the script, considering your Hindi background. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : Yes, nonetheless this is again seen from the spoken language. But is it practicable to have both in one Wiktionary language? It would be presumably that we have the headwords in Devanāgarī, which would require Urdu users to know this script. It could save work, so that for Urdu it would only be necessary to add the Arabic spellings and the entries of these get autocreated and the Devanagari pages could have quotes in both scripts, but it does not look to me like the writers of the two script can well work coordinately. It looks to me like the nuisances would be somewhat greater than when Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian merged. I will support a merge, but I don’t believe in it. It’s a tough job. Novel surely too, because on the market such principally combining dictionaries are (mostly?) absent. (The case for Aramaic is lost I think.) Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 11:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, those are all good points, especially whether "the writers of the two script can well work coordinately". I'd imagine a Pakistani Urdu speaker would object to using the combined name "Hindustani" or even "Hindi-Urdu" since that puts Urdu in a subordinate position. Regarding combined dictionaries, there used to be a lot of them pre-Partition, such as Platts, Fallon, and Shakespear (all available under Creative Commons license here in the Urdu section). But nowadays there are almost no combined dictionaries AFAICT. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)