Talk:qyamancha

RFV discussion and follow-ups
Alt spelling of kamancheh:. Not in Books/Groups. Equinox ◑ 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very, very rare. There does seem to be a painting called "Armenian still-life with qyamancha and flowers" which could debatably be called 'durably archived', but we'd still be two short. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These sites use this spelling:, (durably archived in the name of Meruzhan Khachatryan's oil-on-canvass drawing "Anna with qyamancha"),  (durably archived in the name of Vigen Hakobyan's album "Qyamancha"), ,  (durably archived in the name of Meruzhan Khachatryan's 2009 oil-on-canvass painting "Armenian still-life with qyamancha and flowers"), ,  (durably archived in the name of Suren Khorenyan's oil-on-canvass painting "Qyamancha"), &c. It's attestable, but its definition should be changed to be a  . For some reason, all the users of this spelling seem to be Armenian or Georgian, even though it's a Persian instrument whose name is Persian; perhaps that should be reflected in an additional context tag.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two letters for k in Armenian: one is = [k], the other is  = [kʰ]. When transliterating informally, like the painters and musicians in your links did, we often use Latin k for the first, and q for the second, as if q were somewhat more aspirated. Qyamancha then is a rendering of Armenian.
 * PS. The instrument is not just Persian: it's also Armenian, Georgian, Greek, etc. You must have seen Kamancheh, but there is also Kemenche. Same instruments really, but separated there because of political POV-pushing. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How very interesting. Could you explain all that in an etymology section in undefined: please?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you already have. Is this change OK?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I added the rest of my lecture there. Jesus, we are one badass dictionary: where else can you find such stuff? --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's why I edit here.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Citations:qyamancha. —Ruakh TALK 07:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does fail RFV? Paintings, alba, and drawings on sale are surely durably archived... — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They are? —Ruakh 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, they're not websites that'll one day be deleted, or SMS text messages, or e-mail messages, or conversations — they're solid works of art (however defined), which one can buy. How else would you determine that something is "durably archived"? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But they can burn in a devastating fire, therefore they are not durably archived. b.g.c and groups.google.com cannot burn in a devastating fire. That's the only reason I can think of to not accept them... -- Prince Kassad 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, who's archiving them? The painters are trying to sell them, but will they succeed? And even if they do — will the English names, in these spellings, be on the paintings in some way? (I also have other concerns besides durable archival — two of the cites are mutually non-independent, and the other two don't use the term in any sort of context that would clarify language, POS, etc. — but I really think the durable archival concerns are enough.) —Ruakh 21:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Books, too, can burn or, less drammatically, fail to sell. How would we go about disproving that the paintings are called what those sites claim they're called? As for your other concerns, I should think that lots of context would be unnecessary simply to prove the existence of a certain spelling, and that something like an index listing would do just fine. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I write a novel out in longhand, titled Floobety, and try to sell the manuscript on a web-site, that does not suddenly count as a durably archived use of . When we say that books are durably archived, we don't literally mean that anything that could plausibly be referred to as a "book" is durably archived; rather, we mean that citations from books are generally citations from durably archived books — books that are found in libraries, printed in reasonable numbers, and so on. —Ruakh 01:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What about citations of monumental inscriptions, or of lone manuscripts, as are frequently used for ancient languages? Their originals are particularly susceptible to the ravages of time. Am I right in concluding that your reasoning implies that, though those four original sources are not deemed durably archived, a receipt of purchase for one of them would be? We can't disallow all paintings, since there are some quite famous ones which use words in a lot of context, such as Dalí's Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think any of our ancient-language citers is using "lone manuscripts" in any relevant sense, simply because I really don't think any of our ancient-language citers has access to any "lone manuscripts" that have not been reproduced elsewhere! (I often produce cites from the Westminster Leningrad Codex, but I can assure you, I'm not keeping it in my climate-controlled manuscript cellar. And not just because I live in a "flat".) As for your Dalí painting, see . The title of that painting it durably archived in at least a few dozen books. —Ruakh 12:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you offer a quantitative definition of "durably archived", then? It concerns me that ambiguity is being introduced into the fourth attestation criterion, which has hitherto been one of the few solidly unambiguous guidelines we have. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, to me it just seems obvious that the title of a random painting being sold online is not "durably archived" in the way that a published book is. I don't know how to quantify that. But maybe it's just me; perhaps a BP discussion is in order? —Ruakh 00:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe, since the contrary seems obvious to me. I'll wait for Vahagn Petrosyan to comment herein, if he wants. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Vahagn found this. Does it sway you at all? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, since it's only a mention. I didn't move the entry because I don't want it, I moved the entry because it failed RFV. Sometimes I try to be a bit lenient in closing RFVs, when there's decent evidence for a word, but it belongs to a language or dialect that's sorely underrepresented in print; but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Indeed, quite the reverse: as an alternative spelling of an attested word, I would expect it to be overrepresented in print (since it's 100% unrepresented in speech). —Ruakh 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vahagn. failed RFV. Do you know of any sources you can cite to attest that spelling? Also, you may want to contribute at User talk:Ruakh. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was able to find only this book. The rest are paintings, albums, forum posts, websites. These show that the spelling exists and that people use it, it's not made up. The only reason why Ruakh would interpret CFI rules so pedantically here is because he tries to get back at me for mocking his people. --Vahag 14:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd rather address is arguments than question his motives (which, besides personal inclination, is what WT:AGF requires that we do). I've brought the book citation to his attention; I'll let you know if it sways him. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: other forms cited
I couldn't find any uses of this spelling, but I have just cited kyamancha and kamancha. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion debate

 * Note: all referenced discussions have been archived to Talk:qyamancha. See there for background. —Ruakh TALK 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I marked this RFV failed and pseudo-deleted accordingly (by moving it sans redirect to Citations:qyamancha, and formatting it as a citations page), and no one objected in the RFV discussion itself, but left a comment at my talk-page disagreeing, and I now see that he left a comment at 's talk-page as well, and to judge by Vahagn's reply, Vahagn also disagrees with the pseudo-deletion.

I think I acted correctly — the citations given don't seem to be "durably archived" to me, and I couldn't find any durably archived cites myself. (The only Google Books hit is a mention with attribution to Wikipedia; Google Groups turns up no Usenet hits; and Google Scholar and Google News Archive both turn up blanks.) However, Doremítzwr believes that the citations are durably archived, so I'd like input from third parties, if possible.

(This may actually be better as a BP discussion, or as a new RFV discussion, but since (1) we're only discussing one entry at the moment and (2) the previous RFV discussion failed to garner comments, I thought I'd bring it here first.)

—Ruakh TALK 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem is how can a one word title convey meaning? If there was a very famous painting called Wiktionary, what definition would that justify for the word? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure about the album, but the paintings do depict the instrument. (If you follow the links in Citations:qyamancha, you can see pictures of them.) That's not perfect — for example, none of the titles use an article, even though I'm almost positive that in a sentence one would say "a qyamancha" rather than simply "qyamancha" — but it's not the worst thing ever. —Ruakh TALK 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not perfectly sure, but the reasoning that you have shown in RFV (see Talk:qyamancha) seems valid to me, so this word should be deleted as having failed RFV. --Dan Polansky 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

closed, there doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus for restoring the entry -- Liliana • 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)