Talk:choops

Categorization

 * Anglo-Indian terms like this one do not seem to survive today (could have simply vanished after 1950). So should the entry be categorised as or ? Or perhaps we need to have a separate category altogether: ? —  inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 15:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What about en or en? I think the term Anglo-Indian could be misleading as it also refers to a people but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. en is nicer because: 1) Today the Anglo-Indians living in the Subcontinent mostly use local languages of the cities where they live (besides Indian English), while those who have immigrated to other Commonwealth countries since after the Partition use Commonwealth English; so it is unlikely for them to use the Anglo-Indian English jargons that originated during the colonial era. 2) Such words obviously do not belong to British English, nor even to Indian English (which tends to use Hindustani words in its vocabulary, rather than corrupted Hindustani words); British Indian English is a separate, historical, English  on its own.
 * So I feel that we need to have a separate category: Category:British Indian English as a regional English. — inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling . — inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 17:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is your opinion on this? Should we create a new category, or manage with a preexisting category? — inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be very helpful to have Category:British Indian English if there are a considerable number of such terms (Although CAT:Indian Persian looks promising, it only has one term so far). Here’s a list of existing entries that could be put in that category:
 * bobbery-bob, brandy pawnee, ferash, qui-hi
 * is a possible source for such terms. If you make the category, don't forget to add a description at the top. Kutchkutch (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)