Talk:karman

karman
Do we accept transliterations of Sanskrit words, or should they (like Greek, Russian etc) be in the correct script? SemperBlotto 10:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think not, though I have seen quite a number of Bollywood DVDs with all the Hindi text in Roman letters. --EncycloPetey 10:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * this is not a "rfv" but a "language consideration". Discussion belongs on About_Sanskrit. As for a "correct script", I recommend everyone read at least w:Sanskrit before contributing to that discussion. See, in particular, Image:Phrase sanskrit.png for a selection of eleven scripts that can be used equally "correctly" to write Sanskrit. Favoring Devanagari is a pro-Hindi bias. Selecting IAST is a pro-English bias, which is inherent in en-wiktionary, and should therefore be our choice. Dbachmann 10:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hunh! I knew more than one script was used, but didn't realize just how many. --EncycloPetey 11:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: copyvio. E.g. "any religious act or rite (as sacrifice, oblation etc., esp. as originating in the hope of future recompense and as opposed to speculative religion or knowledge of spirit)" (sense 3) is direct quote from The Doctrine of Karma: its origin and development in Brāhmanical, Buddhist, and Jaina traditions, Y. (Yuvraj) Krishan, page 4. (I haven't checked the others, but that was the first one I picked to check.) Robert Ullmann 11:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * sigh, it is, rather, a direct quote of Monier-Williams' 1899 dictionary, as the entry states up front. That dictionary being out of copyright, your "The Doctrine of Karma" is of course at liberty to quote it without attribution. Is the concept of "AGF" at all known on Wiktionary? Dbachmann 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, and that reference says 1899 exactly where? Robert Ullmann 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Besides which it is 1898. The current edition is copyright 2005; are you quoting from the 1898 edition? The ISBN number is the 1921 edition. Robert Ullmann 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Checked on-line, and this seems to be okay. Robert Ullmann 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Entry still lacks a single citation of use, in any script. Robert Ullmann 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the original question: there is no problem with an entry at कर्मन, as well as in any of the other 9 scripts that Sanskrit may be written in; but is Sanskrit written in the Roman alphabet? IAST, as a transcription is not acceptable any more that than transliterated Russian would be (SemperBlotto's point), unless Sanskrit is actually used that way. (For comparison, we do have entries in romaji, because Japanese is written in romaji, also Korean in 2000 SK revised, so forth.) Devanagari is the "de-facto standard" for Sanskrit (see WP reference Dbachmann gives above); this entry should at least be at कर्मन. If it is used in IAST, a citation or two should be easy. (I should point out that the existence of कर्मन is not in dispute.) Robert Ullmann 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * there are volumes and volumes of Sanskrit texts printed in IAST. Yes, these are mainly western editions of Vedic samhitas. Mayrhofer, the major etymological dictionary of Sanskrit uses IAST throughout, without a single Devanagari glyph. I suggest you try to make a habit of using talkpages to voice such perfectly legitimate concerns in the future. Dbachmann 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very few people watch talk pages for ordinary Wictionary entries, and so a post there cannot obtain a community consensus. The community have therefore decided that the correct forum for issues like this is here at WT:RFV (or perhaps WT:BP or WT:TR. --Eng in ear 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved to correct entry, cleaned up "imaginative" format, replaced redirect with correct reference, removed rfv tag (passed) Robert Ullmann 13:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a test. DAVilla 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, did we decide to keep it as a redirect, or as a real entry stating that it is a IAST form? I see that Dbachmann modified it to be the latter several days after this discussion concluded. -- Beobach972 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We avoid redirects in the main namespace with very few exceptions, and some would argue there shouldn't be a single exception to that rule. The original content was moved to a spelling in a different script, which was the objection raised in the first hand. What remains is a "soft redirect" there, which is acceptable even for romanizations that are out of favor. As it is now is more or less fine, I think. DAVilla 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Playing advocatus diaboli: And what gives IAST such precedence over half a dozen other transcription schemes widely used for Sanskrit by various publications? ISO 15919, Harvard-Kyoto, ITRAN, National Library at Kolkata romanization, SLP1.. :) This is so silly. Sanskrit is usually taught/written in transcribed from because Brahmi scripts are non-trivial to learn and type. Every non-Latin script entry is meant to have provided transliterations, so there's really no need to fear that user typing e.g. nirvaira in the search box will be left in dark. --Ivan Štambuk 16:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)