Jump to content

Talk:Gurmukhi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

This page should mention that Punjabi is also written in the shahmukhi script, related to the Urdu, Persian, and Arabic scripts; and also in devanagari. ; Hippietrail 01:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is a bit lacking so I've taken it upon myself to update it. I'm using the information on my own web site at http://guca.sourceforge.net/resources/introductiontogurmukhi/ to add more information. Please feel free to contribute any other information too! Sukh 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page title

[edit]

I believe Wikipedia policy is that page titles use the most usual English spelling. Both Collins and Encarta online dicionaries only list "Gurmukhi" as a possible spelling. I believe "Gurmukhī" with the macron is more a transliteration of the native name. — Hippietrail 14:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Also, what else can Gurmukhi refer to, besides a script? I think it should just be at Gurmukhi. —Wiki Wikardo 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

[edit]

Shouldn't there be the IPA symbols for the consonants, as well? I have no knowledge of Punjabi, but someone with some knowledge should probably fix that. 66.165.31.200 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


IPA for the consonants is available in Wikipedia:Indic_transliteration_scheme, except you should note that it (apparently) can't be described in a simple table. you need some notes to explain some special cases, particularly the letters for aspirated consonants that are apparently used to mark tonal changes. unfortunately my knowledge of this is too limited to feel confident doing it, but most of the information should be in that big table in the article. --Doviende (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consonants and "Paer Bindi"

[edit]

I just switched the pronunciations between "Fuffa" and "Fuffay paer'ch bindi" to give the unmarked consonant the straightforward "F" pronunciation and "Ph" for the modified letter. This is trivial, but I believe it is correct, being proficient in Gurmukhi/Punjabi myself and consulting with others. Does anyone have an opinion on this and, for example, "Shusha" and "Sussay paer'ch bindi," which is another pair with near-negligible difference (Many Punjabis make no distinction phonetically with such pairs; many will even ignore more distinct "paer bindi" sounds, like sticking with "Ja" even when it should technically be the "loansound" "Za.") Any thoughts?3swordz (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. The pairin bindi letters should be labelled with their unmarked consonant, and pronounced as if they are marked. A Pha with a dot makes a Fa (A Fa with a dot makes a Pha with two dots!). And yes, many Punjabis pronounce them without the dot - but this is incorrect in "proper" Punjabi. 188.28.108.142 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names in the table of consonants and the pairin bindi table are different for the same letter. Confusing to this English only speaker. DennisStork (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi language as a misnomer for Gurmukhi language

[edit]

This whole section seems out of place to me:

  • it's unsupported by references;
  • it has a lot of weasel wording, particularly the second paragraph;
  • a lot of the reasoning is faulty, or simply absent - especially the contention that the script is the most important distinguishing feature of a language, when several languages (eg Malay, Serbo-Croat) have abandoned one script for another or have multiple writing systems.

Even if it does remain, it needs to be made more neutral and to be presented as an expression of a particular point of view - and should come far lower down in the overall article, after the discussion of the characteristics of the script.DrDaveHPP (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration

[edit]

I noticed the article provides the Roman transliteration for vowels but not for consonants. Should this be added? --Joseph Yanchar (User page/Talk page) 04:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Titled

[edit]

Why is this article titled "Gurmukhī alphabet" when it is an abugida. The article title should be just "Gurmukhī" as there is no other use for the word Gurmukhī.Filpro (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abugidas are alphabets, as are abjads, and this is common WP usage, so that's not an argument. CONCISE is a legitimate argument, though a quick GBooks search suggests that "Gurmukhi" is normally used in combination with either "script" or "alphabet". (For our purposes, "script" would be used for the Gurmukhi writing system in general, and "alphabet" for the Panjabi Gurmukhi alphabet specifically.) — kwami (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other signs: why no subsection for the nukta ?

[edit]

Nukta – is a combining character that alters the way a preceding consonant (or matra) is pronounced.

The section on other signs omits any subsection about the nukta sign. This should be added with suitable explanation.

Unicode normalization and the nukta

The nukta symbol ਼ (ੑU+0A3C) is equivalent to the sign part of each of these precomposed characters: 

ਲ਼(LLA), ਸ਼(SHA), ਖ਼(KHHA), ਗ਼(GHHA), ਜ਼(ZA), ਫ਼(FA).

Unicode normalization separates out the nukta sign as a diacritic, leaving one of these letters respectively: 

ਲ(LA), ਸ(SA), ਖ(KHA), ਗ(GA), ਜ(JA), ਫ(PHA).

All four normalization forms (NFC, NFD, NFKC, NFKD) do the same!

DFH (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain precomposed Indic letters that decompose but do not recompose under any normalization form. The list of these characters is given here. The decomposed forms are preferred over the precomposed forms as indicated here. DFH (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmukhi alphabet → Gurmukhi script – It is more of a script than an alphabet, it is treated as a script in this page even in the introduction. 31.215.192.185 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- Gurmukhi script is used to write languages like Punjabi, Sindhi, Some Kashmiri dialects, and Hindi in some areas of Punjab. Gurmukhi alphabet is only used for Punjabi. eg Latin Alphabet is used for Latin while Latin Scipt is used for many languages. This article is about the script, not the alphabet used only for Punjabi. Therefore, this article must be moved. Thapa 75 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible misspelling and ISO 15924 code

[edit]

It's interesting that the ISO 15924 code is Guru, while it can be confused with commong word, and Gurm suggests itself naturally. I'm wondering if the responsible standardization organization officer could have the similar problem like me – misread the script name as "Gurumkhi" (in my case it was "Gumurkhi"). (By the way, does this phenomenon, when you are not exactly dyslectic, but just have some words misread the first time, probably in childhood, and had never chance to fix them by hearing, have a technical term?) —Mykhal (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gurmukhi script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Removing Gurmukhi content /deletion

[edit]

@Drmccreedy

@Kashmiri and @TituDutta - You were earlier quick to delete the contents; Please find some time to answer here are some facts with my questions that anyone would agree with even little knowledge about Gurmukhi

1) Gurmukhi started with thirty five alphabets both primary and ideal secondary experts' sourceGuru Granth Sahib 2) More letters were added [in 1959-60; Punjabi University Patiala]

Q.1 As a common practice, go and verify, if not convinced, Sikhs around the world bow before Guru Granth Sahib why the word Sacred Characteristic of Gurmukhi is missing in this conversation and when I added why I was it removed? Q.2 Where is the mention of this addition on the page; instead a confusion is revealed about the increase number of letters? [Why this change is important and not shared with readers; this was a political move to marginalize the Gurmukhi script having socio-linguistic implication;] Q.3 Instead of deleting the content - why did you allowed the contents to stay, changing the status of page, like I have seen some pages have headers indicating - authentic source required; Your immediate deletion of my contents, justifying deletion with those reasons that could have saved your action, instead of looking for those options that would have allowed, maintaining the free and fearless scholarship sharing using Wiki; This is a reflection of mean motive; a teamwork to stop minority using even free platforms;

Suggested action - POST THIS ON TOP OF GURMUKHI PAGE UNTILL RESOLVED 

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) 24.140.233.38 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC) CharanUOIT (talk • contribs)[reply]

Thanks, @GermanJoe GermanJoe (talk)


Following is a peer-reviewed paper published in Canadian Journal of Native Education that I have used to make an argument; Please advise, if this meets your suggested "ideally secondary expert sources" criteria; else, please help link that can give me better understanding and definition of this term.


An overview of the problem:

The contents of the current page on Gurmukhi are not neutral; though meeting the criteria of multiple sources, these contents fail to connect with particularly Sikh readers since these go against the basic knowledge that enshrines through Guru Granth Sahib.These contents are not referenced from the primary Sikh expert source: Guru Granth Sahib; how this sources defines what is Gurmukhi has been ignored;\

I am suggesting to review a methodology that could be used as a measurement on how contents are shared on Wikipedia; my question is: whether primary expert source such as Guru Granth Sahib is considered for reference or not? Taking example from Shawn Wilson (2001), I have suggested a review so that current page on Gurmukhi could meet the expectations of not only the Sikh readers instead this is how the knowledge from the Guru Granth Sahib will benefit humanity.

Primary Sikh Source

Guru Granth Sahib Defines Gurmukhi-as a unique, unmixable, movement-methodology. ਇਹ ਚਾਲ ਨਿਰਾਲੀ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ (Page: 314, Pauri 25, Online link to search primary source http://www.khojgurbani.com/shabad/index/314 ) The meaning of Gurmukhi as a unique, unmixable, movement-methodology has been further clarified on the same page, Pauri 26 as ਵਿਚਿ ਸਚੇ ਕੂੜੁ ਨ ਗਡਈ....( no mixing in truth - how could mixed truth lead to filter insights?).

Please correct me, if wrong, from an academic perspective, this meaning of Gurmukhi comes close to what Shawn Wilson talks about “how …to live in both worlds…and what is the thinking behind what makes it possible.”(p.175) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indigenous_Research_Methodology ).


Gurmukhi is the language and script of this thinking. Further, he argues that we need to move beyond an “indigenous perspective in research” to “researching from an indigenous paradigm.”

If the word “indigenous” is replaced by “Sikh” that’s what is missing from this page. Sikh perspective is grounded in Guru Granth Sahib and validates scholarship within secondary sources. Further, Sikh scholarship talks about what Wilson says “how …to live in both worlds” so that research and scholarship could do “something better in the world”(p.175). @Kasmiri -I will answer other doubts, once the methodology of sourcing and validating Sikh contents from Guru Granth Sahib is mutually agreed. Guru Granth Sahib is for Sikhs what Shawn mentions "...from an indigenous paradigm." Thanks. CharanUOIT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


@Kashmiri :O [3] I am a sikh (learner) first and a graduate student - these are two worlds that Shawn Wilson talks about - you will not understand; hence, your question/comment although correct, only scratches the surface- If you are open to learning, continuous learning and your learning has not stopped, you will need to read Shawn's complete article to follow and learn what I am talking about here;


Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175-179. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/230307399?accountid=14694


Hello @CharanUOIT:, I really don't want to dismiss your concerns, but as mentioned above: the Teahouse is not a good place for such detailed content-related discussion. Threads here will get archived, and will not be seen by other uninvolved editors who might be watching only the article and might want to offer additional feedback. Please start a thread at Talk:Gurmukhi, briefly outline your concerns there and provide some reliable sources to support your arguments (ideally secondary expert sources) - everyone involved in a dispute is encouraged to start such a thread. At the end of the day, you need to convince other editors to form a consensus or to change existing consensus - otherwise the article is unlikely to get changed. If a talkpage discussion fails, please look into WP:dispute resolution for possible additional venues. I have no stance on the actual dispute either way. These are just general tips on how to proceed as constructive as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Earlier conversation:


@Kashmiri and @TituDutta: Thanks for the invite; For Wiki -as a neutral platform not mismanaged, I want to submit my serious objections to the contents of the Gurmukhi; lets openly talk about the differences Talk:Gurmukhi and until then, in equal fairness, please keep this page out of circulation and suspended giving me an equal opportunity to submit my perspective. I think your understanding about supranatural origin of Gurmukhi has confirmed my apprehensions about your lack of knowledge that pre,colonial and post-colonial scholarship has not adequately addressed Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a Linguistic treatise, a treasure on the origin of human language for the welfare of humankind not just Sikhs. Thus no supernatural origin instead a logical sampling and transcriptions of languages and scripts since Gatha, Sehaskriti and more. Gurmukhi is what enshrines and illuminates Sri Guru Granth Sahib - Sikh religious belief is interwoven into the written living Word; Sikhs have fundamental right to religion; You or other may have time and opportunity to promote your religion or no religion, should that deprive others including Sikhs and termed as "not about your religious beliefs".CharanUOIT (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)CharanUOIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharanUOIT (talk • contribs)

Hello @CharanUOIT: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am just "pinging" the mentioned editors for you: @Kashmiri: and @Titodutta:, to notify them of this post, although such a content-related discussion is usually better started directly on the article's talkpage Talk:Gurmukhi. If you want to notify other editors about one of your messages, you can either use such a template or link to the user with User:username here added in your message (see WP:PING for more info) - otherwise your messages are probably missed by the other editors. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC) @CharanUOIT: Are you really in higher education? :O [3][reply]

On a more serious note, certainly you are welcome to voice your concerns regarding the current version. However, if you just continue claiming that Guru Granth Sahib is "a linguistic treatise, a treasure on the origin of human language for the welfare of humankind", without backing it with any academic reference, then you will not get anywhere. Because I am quite sure other editors will not bother debating your faith. Still, your edits will be reverted, because your beliefs are not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. — kashmīrī TALK 21:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC) As an outsider to the topic (American Jew), I want to state that the page Gurmukhi has existed for many years, and will not be taken out of circulation, or suspended, or reverted to a draft (or nominated for deletion). The proper place to discuss is at Talk:Gurmukhi, where I see that no one has started a discussion. Which is what CharanUOIT asked for. Kashmiri's comments, perhaps more acerbic than necessary, pointed out that Wikipedia content must rest only on cited sources. David notMD (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Thanks GermanJoe Kashmiri David notMD

Guru Granth Sahib Defines Gurmukhi-as a unique, unmixable, movement. ਇਹ ਚਾਲ ਨਿਰਾਲੀ ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ (Page: 314, Pauri 25, http://www.khojgurbani.com/shabad/index/314 ) The meaning of Gurmukhi as a unique, unmixable, movement-methodology has been further clarified on the same page, Pauri 26 as ਵਿਚਿ ਸਚੇ ਕੂੜੁ ਨ ਗਡਈ....( no mixing in truth - how could mixed truth lead to filter insights?).

Please correct me, if wrong, from an academic perspective, this meaning of Gurmukhi comes close to what Shawn Wilson talks about “how …to live in both worlds…and what is the thinking behind what makes it possible.”(p.175)( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indigenous_Research_Methodology ). Gurmukhi is the language and script of this thinking. Further, he argues that we need to move beyond an “indigenous perspective in research” to “researching from an indigenous paradigm.”

If the word “indigenous” is replaced by “Sikh” that’s what is missing from this page. Sikh perspective is grounded in Guru Granth Sahib and validates scholarship within secondary sources. Further, Sikh scholarship talks about what Wilson says “how …to live in both worlds” so that research and scholarship could do “something better in the world”(p.175). @Kasmiri -I will answer other doubts, once the methodology of sourcing and validating Sikh contents from Guru Granth Sahib is mutually agreed. Guru Granth Sahib is for Sikhs what Shawn mentions "...from an indigenous paradigm." Thanks. CharanUOIT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175-179. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/230307399?accountid=14694 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharanUOIT (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


My edits fall under two categories:
  • Phrases like "some may wrongly consider", "miscommunication and wrong credits", "sacred/profane", "Gurmukhi sacred script was diluted" express a point of view WP:POV. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic. You'll find that edits using phrases like these are likely to be reverted, regardless of the subject of the article.
  • Not all sources carry the same weight per WP:UNDUE. One edit I reverted used a blogspot.com link to overrule the consensus that Gurmukhi is a Brahmic-derived script. This contradicts reliable sources such as "The World's Writing Systems", The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, and others. Ad hominem attacks on their authors don't diminish their value.

DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Bhasha - Inappropriate titling of Gurbani

[edit]

@Drmccreedy

Sikhs as a minority, due to political reasons, are propagated to be a part of the Hindu religion; Miscommunications through secondary sources have been shared on the Gurmukhi page that accomplishes a task to undermine Sikhs independent identity and particularly their sacred script Gurmukhi.

Using the term "Sant Bhasha" as "coalesced under the generic title of Sant Bhasha.[5]" is one such dimension of the propaganda. Guru Granth sahib has Gurbani not "Sant Bhasha" that enshrines and illuminates in Gurmukhi sacred script; Larger Sikh perspective is no one calls the language of Guru's anything other than Gurbani; An unheard phrase at a Sikh place of worship or in social get together would be lets sing :Sant Bhasha, or let us read Sant Bhasha- a generic title equivalent to the compositions contained in Guru Granth Sahib. These people sponsored by the propaganda folks and referenced on this page who have confirmed and assigned the generic title have attempted to undermine sacred composition Gurbani- Gurmukhi-Sikh distinct identity.

further the "sacred words" of those not included medieval saints [like Meera Bai treated with reverence by Hindus and her writing Sant Bhasha - language of Saint] are not comparable to Gurbani. There are no compositions of Meera Bai included in Guru Granth Sahib.

In the primary source Guru Granth sahib, there are only two references in the compositions of Bhagat Kabir - Hindus reverence as Sant Kabir - using the term ਬਾਣੀ Bani - the sacred language; three reference to Bani from Bhagat Namdev - Hindu reverence as Sant Namdev; that when enshrines and illuminates the Guru Granth sahib become Gurbani and transcends from what is being titled as Sant Bhasha


Another dimension of that propaganda is Gurmukhi has been modified to add more sounds and letters recently by Punjabi University, Patiala. This dilution is highly objectionable so has socio-linguistic implication desired for political means.

Gurmukhi page does not meet the Neutrality Criteria that Wiki has implemented; since it does not consider the larger Sikh perspective of holding Gurmukhi as a sacred script and Gurbani as the language of Guru Granth Sahib not Sant Bhasha as neatly assigned with a generic title.

Ignoring listening to Sikh side of the story and — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharanUOIT (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I see that in March 2017 (apparently the last time the name was discussed) there was a unanimous decision to move this article to Gurmukhi script, yet now it is called just Gurmukhi and I can't find this move in the edit history. Danielklein (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The move to Gurmukhi happened September last year [1], and the editor responsible was Gotitbro. – Uanfala (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I requested the move as there is no need for descriptors/disambiguators here (script, alphabet) since it is simply known as Gurmukhi. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yogesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.246.47 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Punjabi script" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Punjabi script. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tsla1337 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unnatural geminates

[edit]
This does not include consonants which are not naturally geminated, i.e. ਣ, ੜ, ਵ, ਰ. (ṇ ṛ v r)

If this sentence means what I think it means, I suggest rewording: But certain consonants are never geminated. The word naturally could be taken to mean that other consonants are long by nature, i.e. by default. —Tamfang (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

consonant conjuncts

[edit]
* To form consonant clusters, Gurmukhi uniquely affixes subscript letters at the bottom of standard characters, rather than using the true conjunct symbols used by other scripts, which merge parts of each letter into a distinct character of its own.

Uniquely? Don't many Brahmic scripts do the same? In Devanagari a few conjuncts are opaque (particularly kṣ) but most are readily analyzed into their components. I have the impression that Tibetan script's conjuncts are even more transparent. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurmukhi&oldid=1244385867"