Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit

Romanization of Sanskrit

 * Voting on: That whenever a Sanskrit word is attested in one of the language's native scripts, we allow an entry for the romanization of that word (using the scheme(s) we use for romanizing Sanskrit within entries), and that the romanization entry consist of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry.
 * For example: navo-daya, a romanization of नवोदय, will be allowed, and will direct readers to नवोदय in the same manner that qino directs users to 𐌵𐌹𐌽𐍉.
 * Rationale: see the talk page
 * Vote starts: 00:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote created: - -sche (discuss) 13:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/June#Prescriptivism as to common lay transliterations.
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:mahā
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Talk:mahā
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit

Support

 * 1)   23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) . The thing about languages without scripts (or in extinct scripts) is that every other language is going to transliterate that language into its own script. Sanskrit has no native script of its own, and has been presented in many different scripts on the Indian subcontinent alone. Presenting it only in Devanagari is about as misleading with respect to this aspect of the language as presenting it only in Latin would be. bd2412 T 17:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) . There are whole books of Sanskrit written in Latin script, so I see no reason to exclude Sanskrit in Latin from the dictionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)   Keeping it simple. Develop reverse transliteration modules and use them for advanced (ambiguous) transliteration search purposes, like the system in Spoken Sanskrit. Wyang (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  for now.
 * 3) * I'm not convinced that Latin is an alternative script for Sanskrit and Roman entries should be created at the expense of Devanagari entries. Even if it's proven that Devanagari is not the native script for Sanskrit, it's not Latin, anyway, Latin was used to to reference individual words or phrases, we should let users see Devanagari entries with romanisation. Any Sanskrit texts written in Roman or other scripts just shows that it is/was not easy to use Devanagari and it was popular language in some regions, if somebody wrote in Sanskrit using other scripts. It's easiER now. Let's help users use Devanagari and other complicated scripts and help them find what they're looking for. Can't give a technical advise how but it's probably possible. I have no problem with hard redirects, if they don't conflict with existing entries and using the way it was done at maha when there IS a conflict.
 * 4) * I also think that allowing romanised Sanskrit entries won't improve the state of Sanskrit contents at Wiktionary and will mislead users that it's OK to write Sanskrit in Roman and it is its native script. Regarding the actual vote - there should be a sample entry to show how a Romanised entry may look. If the vote passes, I strongly oppose any definitions included in romanised entries, only links to Devanagari script entries. Loanwords from Sanskrit into English and other languages should, of course be allowed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This vote does not propose that "Roman entries should be created at the expense of Devanagari entries"; it proposes that Latin-script entries are created alongside Devanagari entries. Furthermore, the vote gives clear primacy to Devanagari, since it constrains the romanization entry to "the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry." Therefore, I really don't understand what you are saying. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) * This won't go well. Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts - do you want to accept all conceivable romanizations for a single word from all the Indic scripts? -- Liliana • 22:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That begs the question, what is the right script for Sanskrit entries? Is it only Devanagari? This vote is about romanization, not transliteration into any Indic script. As far as I know, there is no prohibition against making Sanskrit entries in other Indic scripts, and this vote does not affect that one way or the other. bd2412 T 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. Every Indic script is romanized differently. Take Tamil, for example. It lacks a whole lot of consonants that are present in other Indic scripts (since it doesn't have any aspirants and voiced consonants), so a romanization of a Sanskrit word from Tamil will inevitably be different. This can be extended to all the other Indic scripts too. Thus we could end up with a huge pile of romanizations just for one single word. -- Liliana • 09:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What if we restricted romanized Sanskrit entries to IAST? Then there would be only as many Latin-alphabet entries as Devanagari entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IAST only is more palatable but even IAST would not be needed if Wiktionary searches could be restricted by languages. Reverse transliteration (without diacritics) is worth considering. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Liliana, I see your point about having romanizations of numerous scripts, but are we romanizing the Devanagari transliteration of Sanskrit, or are we really just talking about transliterating Sanskrit, irrespective of other transliterations? Are these two different things? bd2412 T 12:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Dijan (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  I support IAST as the primary spelling for Sanskrit, and Devanagari and other spellings should be bot-generated from IAST entries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IAST is the most standard and common transliteration of Sanskrit (by definition) but it's by no means the primary spelling, even basic textbooks on Sanskrit teach Devanagari as the primary script. IAST is only a tool to help both writers (writing about Sanskrit, not in Sanskrit) and the readers. BTW, the current vote suggested allowing ANY attested romanisation, which made it unacceptable, even for IAST fans. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm primarily against Devanagari because its usage smacks of pro-Hindu POV. Sanskrit has millenia-long tradition being written in Tamil and other Indic scripts, and is much older than Devanagari. Textbooks that use Devanagari are mostly 19th and early 20-th century - today on unis it's always taught in IAST, and Devanagari is taught for practical literacy purposes. IAST is culturally neutral and should be primary spelling per NPOV policy. Latin script also is the most powerful means to transcribe various forms of written Sanskrit and to map among them in an algorithmic fashion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) . The arguments for whether Latin is one of Sanskrit’s scripts or just transliteration seem to go both ways. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) . For now; I tend to support. What if the "modicum" constraint is an unnecessary compromise to appease the irrational hatred of romanization? What if there is consensus or near-consensus to actually allow Latin Sanskrit in full? What makes Devanagari better suited for Sanskrit than Latin in this English Wiktionary? If Sanskrit is widely attested in Latin (is it?), I do not know what gives Devanagari the right to supremacy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Decision
Fails 3–5–2 (37.5%). No change in policy is effected: the status quo is maintained. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)