Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kamarupa map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Speakers

@Fylindfotberserk: Kamrupi people speak Kamrupi dialect of Assamese, not Kamarupi prakrit which was spoken by Indo-Aryan ancestors of Assamese and Kamtapuri speakers. Msasag (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Msasag: Consider reading the works of G.C Goswami, U.N Goswami, Kaliram Medhi etc.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: please also consider reading the writings of Kakati, S K Chatterjee and more recent authors. Chaipau (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I studied both the authors, kindly add them to article, if you believe they are not covered.Thanksभास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakkrit is not Kamrupi dialect. This has been established earlier. Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1#Kamrupi_and_Kamarupi_Prakrit. Chaipau (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can be changed, if any actually reached. Lot of information added afterwards, see references.You changed the article name from original "Kamrupi" to current one which is misleading.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau you are continuously reverting my edits, try to use talk or any other forum if you disagree.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I have provided the links to previous discussions. There is nothing to discuss if you do not respect those discussions and the opinions of third parties. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I do acknowledge them, kindly confirm if your arguements are in conformity with the citations provided in this and Kamrupi dialect article.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the inserts that contradict the discussions, which was the consensus then. Please discuss for new consensus before inserting older claims that you had made. Chaipau (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, consensus if you think has reached need to be changed. I renewing my claim that Ancient Kamrupi language is now Western Assamese/Kamrupi dialect as spoken in Kamrup district/Kamrup region, see local authors A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese, a thesis by Dr. U.N Goswami, [1], [2].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakrit was spoken a thousand years ago, and is as yet an un-reconstructed language. A passing reference in a PhD thesis is not enough to establish that it is the same as a modern dialect. Chaipau (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That Goswami (1970) made no such claim as claimed above was already discussed threadbare in 2012 here: 505506953. Chaipau (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakrit was spoken a thousand years ago, and is as yet an un-reconstructed language. The works in Kamrupi language are available since first millennium c.e. A passing reference in a PhD thesis is not enough to establish that it is the same as a modern dialect. We go by citations not arguments, see how citation works, also that thesis was published as book of same name in 1970, see [3], [4].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• PhD thesis has a higher reliability because it has been vetted. Books, though published are not vetted by others.
• Furthermore, Toulmin's PhD thesis is newer (2006) and it takes precedence over Goswami in this regard. Chaipau (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Even so, Goswami (1970) makes understands a distinction between Kamarupi Prakrit and kamrupi dialect:
  • The title of his thesis is very clear about Kamrupi dialect of Assamese: "A Study of Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese"
  • Here he mentions Kamarupi Prakrit as the precursor of Assamese: "Thus the inscriptions record the Kamarupa Prakrit and establish the antiquity of the Assamese language at a very remote period of its history", p3
  • Here, Goswami (1970) umambiguously identifies Kamarupa dialect as a dialect of Eastern Magadhi Prakrit: "Eastern Magadhi Prakrit has been divided into four dialect groups by scholars like Dr Chatterji. Kamarupa dialect comprising Assamese and the dialects of North Bengal is one of them. So it becomes necessary to see how much Kamrupi is related to North Bengali."

Chaipau (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PhD thesis has a higher reliability because it has been vetted. Books, though published are not vetted by others. Goswami (1970) is based on his 1958 doctoral thesis.Furthermore, Toulmin's PhD thesis is newer (2006) and it takes precedence over Goswami in this regard.Toulmin has hardly done any major work in Assamese as against Goswami, who has numerous works in Assamese and Kamrupi language (see references in Kamrupi dialect article), i don't see him contradicting Goswami anywhere. Even so, Goswami (1970) makes understands a distinction between Kamarupi Prakrit and kamrupi dialect:The title of his thesis is very clear about Kamrupi dialect of Assamese: "A Study of Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese".Here he mentions Kamarupi Prakrit as the precursor of Assamese: "Thus the inscriptions record the Kamarupa Prakrit and establish the antiquity of the Assamese language at a very remote period of its history", p3 Here, Goswami (1970) umambiguously identifies Kamarupa dialect as a dialect of Eastern Magadhi Prakrit: "Eastern Magadhi Prakrit has been divided into four dialect groups by scholars like Dr Chatterji. Kamarupa dialect comprising Assamese and the dialects of North Bengal is one of them. So it becomes necessary to see how much Kamrupi is related to North Bengali." Here you provided cherry pickings of Goswami (1970) without context, the full quote relevant to dispute is provided as reference in Kamrupi dialect article. As i see this discussion will go on like this as last time, better move it to other forum with wide audience for binding consensus for now.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, here is some context:

• You are quoting from the Preface of the book. Could you please look provide a similar quote from the body of his work? The quote I have provided is from the body.
• In the quote you have provided, Goswami is quoting K L Baruah. K L Baruah in his book says just the opposite of what you are claiming.
  • "In the seventh century Yuan Chwang found that the lauguage spoken by the people of Kamarupa differed only a little from that spoken in mid-India. This shows that the language then spoken in Kamarupa was a Sanskritic dialect. It was probably an eastern variety of Prakrit bearing close affinity to Maithili and it was no doubt the parent of Kamarupi or Assamese language." (K L Baruah (1933) "Early history of Kamarupa", page 164)
  • Here K L Baruah is using Kamarupi and Assamese synonymously. ("Kamarupi or Assamese language")

Chaipau (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quoting from the Preface of the book. Could you please look provide a similar quote from the body of his work? The quote I have provided is from the body. I have quoted Goswami, p.4. In the quote you have provided, Goswami is quoting K L Baruah. K L Baruah in his book says just the opposite of what you are claiming. "In the seventh century Yuan Chwang found that the lauguage spoken by the people of Kamarupa differed only a little from that spoken in mid-India. This shows that the language then spoken in Kamarupa was a Sanskritic dialect. It was probably an eastern variety of Prakrit bearing close affinity to Maithili and it was no doubt the parent of Kamarupi or Assamese language. Here K L Baruah is using Kamarupi and Assamese synonymously see Barua, p.318, Goswami, p.4, Choudhary, p.16, Sen, p.33.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC – Are the Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect same?

Is Kamrupi dialect the same as Kamarupi Prakrit?

Past discussions:

• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1#scope, Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1#Kamrupi_and_Kamarupi_Prakrit, Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_2#Corrections_required

Past merge and move proposals:

• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1#Merger_with_Kamrupi_dialect, Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_2#Requested_move

Current discussion:

• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit#Speakers

Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Restored lede

@Bhaskarbhagawati: You reverted the recent edits that were made to make the lede tighter and to the point. Instead you seem very adamant on just somehow pushing the POV that Kamarupi Prakrit is nothing but the Kamrupi dialect. This is an untenable position, given that Kamarupi Prakit is , (1) pre-1250 and (2) not fully specified. Irrespective of what people have been claiming. So please discuss here, before you fill up citations with paragraphs. Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To remove references, WP:RSN has to call them unreliable. Because citations are not respected, every article you and me involved is turning into a battle ground.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The references that were removed were in Assamese and do not support the text. You are spamming the citations with irrelevant materials. This article is about the language before 1250 AD. Chaipau (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What i have seen are English citations by eminent linguistic, there is no justifications for citations removal unless specifically said by wp:rsn. Please restore it.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The voluminous and irrelevant quotes are an abuse of Wikipedia conventions. For example, The quote from Goswami (1970) to claim the correct name is "Kamarupi language". Who said it was the correct name? Goswami does not claim that is the correct name. In fact, his sentence reads exactly the same if "language of Kamarupa" is used instead of "Kamarupi language". The subject of his work is the modern Kamrupi dialect, so why should we use his turn of phrase to name a pre-1250 AD language, which is not his primary concern? The Kamarupi Prakrit is named after that used by M M Sharma, who has listed out the "prakritisms" in the Kamarupa inscriptions. This is followed by Toulmin, who partially reconstructs the language with three linguistic features, and who calls it proto-Kamrupa as is the convention to call reconstructed languages. These are the two main works that have directly worked on the language of Kamarupa from before 1250 and they have precedence over other works. Sharma, who has reconstructed the language of prakritisms in inscriptions, and Toulmin, who have put forward possible linguistic features from the existing Kamatapuri lects and Assamese.

The claim that the Kamrupi dialect is the same as Kamarupi Prakrit is untenable. Goswami 1970 has himself listed the differences. Kakati (1941) has said that the initial stress in Kamrupi dialect is a recent acquisition, much after 1250 (probably a 16th-17th century phenomenon). Therefore, Kamrupi dialect is farther away from Kamarupi Prakrit than standard Assamese in certain respects. Assorted quotes from random authors plucked from the internet just adds to the noise and degrades Wikipedia articles.

You are invited to make your case here first.

Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We add only what reliable sources are saying exactly in our own words. Analysis then conclusions, fast checking reliable sources is prohibited. Because this basics are not followed, talk involving me and you are failing since 2012, thus i prefer to take issues to noticeboards for binding consensus in timely manner for any outcome.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss it is here. It is not that you disagreed with me, but you have disagreed with 3O as well, here as well in other articles. Here is talk:aeusoes1 explaining to you the un-tenability of your position. 505689192, 505718345. Your position and sources were explicitly rejected here 534483377, and yet you are still at it now. Yet, you are still invited to engage in this discussion. Chaipau (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The above links are from 2012, where unsuspecting editor was made to believe what you want, although not binding still i accepted. We are here discussing newer sources added by me just few years ago. The problem is reliable sources are overtaken by arguments.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Removal_of_reliable_sources. Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the notice here, belatedly, after you were pointed out that you neglected to do so.

Also, it does not serve the services of the 3O if you belittle the contribution. user:Aeusoes1 has engaged with you for months. His interest is Linguistics and yet you call his opinion "unsuspecting" because you could not convince him. This has been going on for close to seven years and should stop. Please take this to DR and we will make presentations there. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As I recall from 2012, my being "made to believe" what Chaipau wanted was through my examining the sources and arguments that Bhagawati provided. Saying that I was tricked is accusing Chaipau of acting in bad faith, which is a big no-no. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau contribute to the above open thread, if it fails then i can take it to wp:drn. Aeusoes, yes people should have faith on others.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹ can older consensus changes with newer evidences ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It sure can. Though if you want to make the case again that the Kamrupi dialect of Assamese is the same as the Kamarupi Prakrit of thousands of years ago, then I feel very confident that there is no authoritative source that would back up this claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹ thank you, if reliable sources explicitly say so then what should be our position ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We've already established that reliable sources say otherwise. Sources that contradict this are probably not reliable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, if wp:rsn says so should we accept or reject it ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in playing with hypotheticals like this. As I recall from last time, the evidence you provided was cherry-picked quotes from sources that turned out to say the opposite of what you were claiming. Should we expect more of this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, although i have not got my answer, its way forward.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The bottomline of this discussion is that old consensus, if any, cannot be changed at any cost.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that there are no new reliable sources that contradict the existing ones used to establish the previous consensus, it's very unlikely that consensus will change on this matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are newer sources that contradicts earlier consensus, should it be acceptable ? I am asking this question for second time.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, this is not a game. Your question was already answered. Chaipau (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, no problem.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. After all this time, nearly a month and 3 relists for this RM (and I read that discussing these matters has gone on for 7 years?), we still see little or no general agreement below to rename this article. Even if opinions made in the discussion area are merged with the focused survey section, we see only a tiny tilt toward Old Kamrupi language; however, that's not really enough yet to justify a rename. See also the precise term "Prakrit". Something solid does appear to be forming around the name Proto-Kamarupa language; however, it still seems to be a "not quite yet" situation. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few weeks to garner consensus, hopefully for a specific choice of article title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Kamarupi Prakrit → ? – What should be the primary name of this article? All other plausible names can be redirects. The following names have been proposed:

A. Kamarupi Prakrit.

B. Proto-Kamarupa language.

C. Old Kamrupi language.

D. Old Kamarupi dialect

E. Kamrupi language.

F. Kamrupi Apabhramsa.

Please specify your first choice, and rank other choices, in the Survey section. Threaded discussion may be in the Threaded Discussion section. Due to the large number of possible names, we may request a snowball closure to exclude some of the choices and restart the RFC for the remaining choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. bd2412 T 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisting note: I've swapped process tags on this from {{rfc}} to {{rm}}, because WP:RM is the process used for page titling discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep Kamarupi Prakrit, absent a detailed WP:COMMONNAME analysis or some other actual rationale for a move, per WP:TITLECHANGES. This !vote isn't hostile to another name being chosen for a prevailingly strong reason. As of this writing, insufficient information has been presented for a ranked-choice thing. Judging from the abortive prior RfC and list of prior discussions above, this has been debated many times already without coming to consensus. That's not going to be fixed by just opening a vote in a vacuum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that some construction including "language" in the title would be an improvement. Old Kamrupi language would be acceptable for this purpose. bd2412 T 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The above RFC for the title of article is opened by volunteer of WP:DRN based on discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Kamrupi_discussion. The recommendations for change is made for its unrecognizability, used only once in our available sources by Mukunda Madhava Sharma (1978) as passing comment in non-linguistic work, certainly not a wp:common name. Also in earlier discussions above absence of reliable sources act as hindrance in clear consensus, which is not a case now.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:DRN discussion has determined that Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are not equivalent. Thus to distinguish between the two, the five principles of WP:CRITERIA also apply—Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency.

The discussion on name change is given here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Kamrupi_discussion#Ninth_statements_by_editors.

Chaipau (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I weigh in more in favour of title suggested by volunteer "Old Kamrupi language", he has taken the common prefixes of suggested names and added 'old' to show its antiquity.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, maybe it will more appropriate to move this discussion to our main talk to determine most common and obvious title. In my experience due to unfamiliarity with the subject, it draws very low participation. The only editor comment so far also talked of his lack of knowledge on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed for 7 long years. WP:COMMON is definitely not the right approach here, because of the subject matter. If the subject is not sufficiently mentioned in the internet, it is not possible to use WP:COMMON. Chaipau (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting note: I was going to close as no consensus but uninvolved input from the community would be appreciated as this is a DRN case. SITH (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, try to reconsider your vote because the most neutral name out of many names as suggested by WP:DRN volunteer "Old Kamrupi language" is agreed on by me and another uninvolved voter, your vote can potentially build consensus. The other editor primarily quoting two works Mukunda Madhava Sharma 1978, an work on inscriptions and Matthew Toulmin 2006, a thesis on modern lects of North Bengal further west of Assam (old/modern Kamrupi language is used in Assam). Both the works not discussing our language in concern (even they hardly has linguistic experience as writer as against Upendranath Goswami), the second work is available online while i can upload the relevant pages of first work, if required. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Not opposed, if the evidence supports its use and neutrality. My comment above is basically saying "no change without solid evidence that favors one".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have relisted this discussion one final time, to see if we can get any more input. I notice that a number of editors involved with this dispute have not clearly set out their positions in this discussion. @Aeusoes1, Bhaskarbhagawati, Chaipau, and Richard Keatinge: it would be very helpful if you could state clearly your preferred title (with policy-based reasons) in the #Survey section above. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep Kamarupi Prakrit or change to Proto-Kamarupa language

@MSGJ: this is in response to your appeal to revisit the issue.

[@BD2412: request you to please reconsider your vote, given the following information Chaipau (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)]

Wikipedia policies: The policies that apply here are the five principles stated in WP:CRITERIA, and to a lesser extend WP:COMMONNAME. This is because the subject matter is esoteric, and not all the usage can be captured by a Google search on the English language; and as a result WP:COMMONNAME is not easy to determine. What I have put down here are already in the DRN, but with a little additional editing:

1. Kamarupi Prakrit based on an actual attempt at reconstruction; we should not move back to ad hoc names used before 1978.
   • Recognizability—this name is recognizable because it has gained currency in the academic literature after 1978 when it was coined, based on a substantial attempt at reconstruction. It has been used by Upendranath Goswami (1991)[5] who had earlier (1970) used the name "Old Kamrupi language".
   • Precision—This name is unambiguous since the use of Prakrit indicates it is from an older period and that it existed in parallel to Sanskrit; that it is reconstructed based on prakritisms found in Sanskrit texts; and distinguishes it from the modern Kamrupi dialect. It uses Kamarupi, derived from Kamarupa to denote the prevalence of the language in the entire Kamarupa kingdom that encompassed present-day Assam and North Bengal, the indigenous languages of which this old language was the parent. Many other names, used before 1978, were coined ad hoc (and thus the profusion) and they all lack precision.
   • Conciseness—The article name is two words and no more.
   • Consistent—The name uses the form Kamarupi to denote that it is associated with Kamarupa and avoids being associated with Kamrup region, which is a much smaller present-day region within the older kingdom. This usage is consistent with the wider uses of these two names, Kamarupa and Kamrup, across Wikipedia.
2. Proto-Kamarupa language
   • This name has been used recently, so is not as widely used. So Wikipedia should probably wait for a little while before moving to this name.
   • Improves precision tremendously—While maintaining the precision of Kamarupi Prakrit, it adds to the fact that the language is unattested and that it has been reconstructed (partially for now), with at least one attempt based on the comparative method.
   • Improves consistency—This name brings it in line with modern linguistic practices.

Furthermore, we should not consider ad hoc names that were coined before 1978. These names are of the form Old Kamrupi language, Old Kamarupi language, Kamarupi dialect, etc. There are so many of them precisely because they were coined ad hoc.

• These names were used when the language was still speculative and in the contexts of other languages, not in the context of this language.
• Those who had used these earlier names have since accepted the use of Kamarupi Prakrit (e.g. Upendranath Goswami 1991, has clearly and categorically called this language Kamarupi Prakrit).
• It was decided in DRN that Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are entirely different. Using names such as the ad hoc names listed will make these two articles less distinguishable violating a number of principles from WP:CRITERIA.

Chaipau (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ, i will go with "Old Kamrupi language" as suggested by WP:DRN volunteer. Although, i believe involved editors should not vote because in one side is myself and in other side there are two or more editors, thus balancing issue may occur. Also, current spelling (Kamarupi Prakit) given by Chaipau is untenable because it is used only once in Mukunda Madhava Sharma 1978 as passing comment (which itself is non-linguistic), there is problem of recognition.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati - Do not try to tilt the consensus by excluding existing editors. You are trying to put the thumb on the scale. If the consensus was already against you before the RM was started and an equal number of new editors favor either answer, the consensus is still against you. Do not try to game the system by rigging the rules. If you make any more suggestions such as that, I will request that User:Abecedare take this matter back to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, consider providing this discussion some more time by some way or other due to very low particiaption so far (as it is WP:DRN case instead of a regular WP:RM).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Chaipau, keep as Kamarupi Prakrit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

G. Proto-Kamarupan language

What about option G. Proto-Kamarupan language? I'm new to this ((Summoned by bot) to a related Rfc, ended up here). In searching around, I found references to "Proto-Kamarupan" in various references discussing Himalayan languages (sometimes "Proto-Himalayish" is mentioned, and Sino-Tibetan language). Is Proto-Kamarupan language a synonym for option B. Proto-Kamarupa language? Because it's attested. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Kamarupan/Himalayish etc. is used in the context of Tibeto-Burman languages—so Proto-Kamarupan would connote the proto-language of the Tibeto-Burman language of Kamarupa. On the other hand Kamarupi Prakrit was an Indo-Aryan language. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Next Steps

Thank you to User:StraussInTheHouse for relisting. The very limited input in seven days on this Requested Move is exactly why I had originally posted it as a 30-day RFC rather than as a 7-day Requested Move. However, as to the suggestion to "move this discussion to our main talk" with no specified procedure for closing, No. This case was sent from WP:ANI to DRN to get it resolved if possible, and discussion has already been going on for two months, and I do not intend simply to let it drag on for another year. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, no problem. Perhaps to get the best of both worlds the discussion could be advertised at WP:CENT to increase input? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

RFC on Lede Paragraph

Invalid RfC: asks for a choice between "two versions" but they are identical. Feel free to repair this and remove this closure, and uncomment the RfC tag. Never mind; new RfC opened below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC); updated: 19:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which of two versions of the lede paragraph of this article, Kamarupi Prakrit, should be used? Please choose version A, which is the current version, or version B, in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Extended discussion may take place in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Status Quo (version A) Kamarupi Prakrit is the unattested Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language used in ancient Kamarupa (5th–13th century). This language is the historical ancestor of the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language; and can be dated prior to 1250 CE, when the proto-Kamta language, the parent of the Kamatapuri lects, began to develop. Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed. The evidence of this MIA exist in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions. This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. A distinguishing characteristic of Kamarupa inscriptions is the replacement of ś and ṣ by s, which is contrary to Vararuci's rule, the main characteristic of Magadhi Prakrit, which warrants that ṣ and s are replaced by ś. Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects. References Version B Kamarupi Prakrit is the unattested Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language used in ancient Kamarupa (5th–13th century). This language is the historical ancestor of the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language; and can be dated prior to 1250 CE, when the proto-Kamta language, the parent of the Kamatapuri lects, began to develop. Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed. The evidence of this MIA exist in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions. This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. A distinguishing characteristic of Kamarupa inscriptions is the replacement of ś and ṣ by s, which is contrary to Vararuci's rule, the main characteristic of Magadhi Prakrit, which warrants that ṣ and s are replaced by ś. Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects. References Survey Threaded Discussion The two versions are identical. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC) The current version of ledes are result of recent change by Chaipau, the long standing versions are [6] and [7].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected RFC on Lede Paragraph

Which of two versions of the lede paragraph of this article, Kamarupi Prakrit, should be used?

Please choose version A, which is the current version, or version B, in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Extended discussion may take place in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Status Quo (version A)

Kamarupi Prakrit is the unattested Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language used in ancient Kamarupa (5th–13th century). This language is the historical ancestor of the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language; and can be dated prior to 1250 CE, when the proto-Kamta language, the parent of the Kamatapuri lects, began to develop. Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.

The evidence of this MIA exist in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions. This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. A distinguishing characteristic of Kamarupa inscriptions is the replacement of ś and ṣ by s, which is contrary to Vararuci's rule, the main characteristic of Magadhi Prakrit, which warrants that ṣ and s are replaced by ś. Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.

References

Version B

Kamrupi language was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam. It was sole literary language of the region till nineteenth century, subsequently lost its prestige and now become a dialect, spoken in modern Kamrup.

The eastern Magadhi Prakrit gave rise to four languages, Radhi, Varendari, Kamrupi and Vanga. This Kamrupi language can be dated at least to first millennium, when deluge of literary activity occurred in North Bengal and Western Assam , and the ancestor of the North Bengal dialects (Kamta, Rajbanshi and Northern Deshi Bangla) began to develop. This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.

This apabhramsa gave rise to various modern eastern Indo-European languages like Assamese language, and significantly different from it in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables.

References

Survey

• False dichotomy, as with a similar RfC at another page on another group of languages. Both versions have their strengths and weaknesses, and are worth merging. The second is problematic, however, because it is asserting in Wikipedia's own voice alleged facts that we know from the first version are debated among linguists. So, if we had to pick between the two, we'd have to stick with the first or something like it. However, ver. 1 has verb tense errors (e.g., all this "is" must be "was": "Kamarupi Prakrit[1] is the unattested Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language used in ancient Kamarupa (5th–13th century). This language is the ...").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC); rev'd.: 15:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Version A is clearly an excellent piece of encyclopedic work. It makes appropriate use of appropriate references, and it makes the (mildly complex) situation clear to someone like myself with no previous knowledge of the linguistics of Assam. Version B tends to confuse issues and strains the sense of the references in doing so. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

False Dichotomy

@SMcCandlish: Would the following text work for the first paragraph (keeping the citations as it is):

Kamarupi Prakrit was the unattested Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language used in ancient Kamarupa (5th–13th century). This language was the historical ancestor of the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language; and can be dated prior to 1250 CE, when the proto-Kamta language, the parent of the Kamatapuri lects, began to develop.

Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Provide sources for "unattested" and "period of usage".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On Unattested

The standing lede is recently changed by Chaipau and replaced with unsourced statements 'unattested MIA', 'used in Kamarupa kingdom (4th-12 century)' and 'existence not proven'. Such change also removed reliable sources (Goswami 1970, Sen 1975, Sengupta 2016), which now agreed for inclusion again in ongoing WP:DRN.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unattested because there is no direct evidence of this language. This is borne out of the fact that Sharma 1978 and Toulmin 2006 have both tried to reconstruct it---Sharma from corrupt forms in Sanskrit texts, and Toulmin using comparative methods. If Bhaskarbhagawati is claiming this language is attested, he just has to provide references that have been accepted by the linguistic community.

Furthermore, since Sharma and Toulmin are the ones who have attempted reconstructing this language, we should follow names as used by them. Sharma uses Kamarupi Prakrit, and Toulmin uses Proto-Kamarupa language. We should not use names from prior to 1978 when the language was still a speculative conjecture.

Chaipau (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The references are Choudhary, Abhay Kant (1971), Early Medieval Village in North-eastern India, A.D. 600-1200:Mainly a Socio-economic Study, Punthi Pustak (India), page 253, Choudhary, Radhakrishna (1976), A Survey of Maithili Literature, Page 16, Upendranath Goswami, A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese, 1970, Page 4 for writings in Kamrupi language in first millennium (see they are already in our articles), as other editor asked for.

Thats why, "Sharma 1978 and Toulmin 2006 reconstructed it" is misrepresentation at best, they not even discussing Kamrupi language.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Aphorisms of Dak and the Charyapadas may contain language elements from Kamarupi Prakrit, but they are not attested examples of this language for the following reasons:

• The Aphorisms of Dak are neither attested to one language or region (there are oral traditions in Oriya language, Bengali language as well as Assamese language), nor to a period (some of the subjects deal with 16th-century monotheistic themes). In the separate folk traditions in each of these regions, they are influenced by the local languages. The earliest manuscripts are from recent centuries and these are primarily oral traditions. Yes, they could be used to reconstruct Kamarupi Prakrit, but they are themselves not examples of the old language.
• Similarly, the Oriya, Bengali and Assamese affinities of the Charyapada are given here: Charyapada#Language. The authors of the various poems are from different regions themselves, making it impossible to pin the poems to Kamarupa alone. At best the language could be a literary tradition that is common to these three (or four) linguistic regions (Maithili, Oriya, Assamese and Bengali). In any case, we know that the literary forms of the past, especially in poetry, differ vastly from common speech.
• Kanak Lal Barua's opinions, published nearly a hundred years ago, are too old. We cannot accept his views uncritically.

Chaipau (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest removing "unattested" (which is arguable - the evidence given is attestation of a sort) and replacing it with "postulated". What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "postulated" would work. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have boldly made the change. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Even "postulated" need to be backed by secondary sources, the version A has WP:V issue (such as for "unattested/postulated", "period of usage", "existence not proven" etc). The "Dakabhanita" and "Charyapada" are works in Kamrupi language/Old Kamrupi dialect as stated by above mentioned sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Postulating" is a fair description of what our sources are doing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Provide the sources, i have done so to support its full fledge literary language status.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

By writing "postulated", we are using an English word to describe what the sources are telling us. This is good encyclopedic practice. We don't need a source that specifically uses that word in this context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

By such usage it still depicts cloud around its existence, which is unwarranted when we have works in this old form of language, although if some authors have such viewpoints it can considered for inclusion.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that Kamarupi Prakrit is the same language as those in which significant literature is extant. This is the point that you are trying to make, against consensus, with such remarkable persistence. To return to the word "postulated", it will remain appropriate even if you can somehow achieve consensus that modern Kamrupi dialect is most usefully described as the same language as the Middle Indo-Aryan used in Assam before 1250 CE. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not the case, we need sources to backup that exceptional claim. I am sure you can give one, as you have good grasp of the subject as shown by your active participation in every section of this dispute in both the articles.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little confused here, but why would postulated be a good choice if unattested isn't? The article on attested language uses the two terms as synonyms. Would minimally attested be a good compromise? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"Postulated" isn't quite the same as "unattested". Indeed, "minimally attested" would be fine. However, if Bhaskarbhagawati ever manages to carry his point, that Kamarupi Prakrit is the same language as modern Kamrupi dialect, this temporally-extended language would be plentifully attested, though not during the period in which it could be described as a Prakrit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The "postulated" and "unattested" maybe not feasible without sources directly or indirectly indicating it.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

We have belaboured this point at greatly excessive length already. To sum up, "postulated" and "minimally attested" are both appropriate encyclopedic descriptions of Kamarupi Prakrit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

But content without inline citation can easily removed.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus to remove this particular wording, please do so. Until then, it's time to move on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to question uncited content, consider providing some sources for "postulated"/"unattested", which is a very important claim.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That goes both ways, Bhaskar. Do you have a source that uses the word "attested" in reference to Kamarupi Prakrit? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I used "first Indo-Aryan language" for "Kamrupi language" as per Goswami 1970.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, then. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition of reference to Version A

I propose the addition of the following reference to the first sentence of the second paragraph of version A:

The evidence of this MIA exist in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions.

Chaipau (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide exact quote of second citation without translating ? Because U.N Goswami used 'Kamrupi' not 'Kamarupi'. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi and Kamrupi are spelled the same way in Assamese but pronounced differently. Your claim that Goswami used Kamrupi instead of Kamarupi is speculative and without basis.

• We are using the English spelling from Sharma 1978, whose book is in English, and who Upendranath Goswami quotes from.
• We want to use the spellings Kamarupa and Kamrup consistently in Wikipedia according to WP:CRITERIA.

Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Consider providing exact Assamese quote because i have seen that work. You cannot misrepresent everytime just because other involved editors except you and me are unfamiliar with the subject, i cleared it before and i am repeating "nobody can write "Kamarupi" in Assamese because common spelling used in indic and Assamese script is 'কামৰূপী' (Kamrupi), whereas in English Kamarupi and Kamrupi holds the same meaning where first is Sanskrit usage second usage with Sanskrit phoneme (first vowel) suppressed".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what your objections are here. The spelling in Assamese script (which is also used for Sanskrit) has no bearing here. We are using the English spelling from Sharma 1978 (WP:UE). Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You are quoting Goswami 1991, an Assamese work (with your own translation) to show that 'Kamarupi Prakrit' spelling used by someone else in addition to our single source Sharma 1978. But you are not willing to provide his original quote, i believe your translation is misleading because i seen have that work.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• For the sake of this DRN process, I urge you not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS or not WP:AGF. In the translation I have used English language and English spellings according to WP:UE.
• The Assamese text is available freely on the web. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.451032/page/n11

Chaipau (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i know that its available online, now see he used 'কামৰূপী' (Kamrupi).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity in Kamarupi because the original English spelling is available. The original in Sharma (1978) is Kamarupi Prakrit. The কামৰূপী in (Goswami 1991) is a translation to Assamese from English. We are in no way constrained to use Goswami's spelling, either in English or Assamese and as the note from user:Mathglot shows, there is an ambiguity in the Indic scripts. Since the original spelling is already available in English, we are using it according to WP:UE. You do not have the freedom to interpret it. Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It gets a little trickier, because transliteration is one thing, and pronunciation can (sometimes) be another. The gloss কামৰূপী actually has an ambiguous pronunciation, but not an ambiguous transliteration. Assamese Devanagari is a syllabary and consonants normally take a default 'a' sound unless a different vowel follows (like 'u' in -ru, or 'i' in -pi). When you have two consonants pronounced together such as -mr-, normally you would have to merge them into a consonant cluster in writing, to avoid the default vowel between them. So, strictly speaking, to generate the transliteration 'kamrupi', you would have to write, কম্ৰুপী. Transliterating কামৰূপী yields 'kamarupi'. (Well, actually, it yields 'kamarupī' with a long ī sound (ee in beet). To generate short i kamarupi, would be *কম্ৰুপি but that's not how it's spelled.) The tricky part, is sometimes people don't bother with the consonant cluster and write the two consants apart, but pronounce them together, as in Hindi करना whose transliteration is 'karanā' but the word ('to do') is actually pronounced 'karna'. So, as far as how to write this in a Wikipedia title using Latin letters, it depends on whether we want a transliteration that is strictly a one-to-one mapping so that the underlying Assamese script can be generated from it without error, in which case we should use the transliteration method, or whether we want to represent how it sounds. My guess is that most non-Assamese (that includes me) have no idea how it sounds, and see 'Kamarupa' in reliable sources. Those not familiar with Devanagari-based languages, will assume the second 'a' is pronounced; those familiar with it, will consider the Latin version ambiguous, since you can't tell if it's a strict transliteration, or just a rendering of the sound value into Latin letters. Not sure how Wikipedia generally handles this ambiguity, but there are probably some precedents in article titles out there we can follow. The only thing you can say for certain, is that 'kamrupi' is not a strict transliteration of কামৰূপী, and 'kamarupī' is. But some of these people were using typewriter font, and didn't have access to it, so it came out 'kamarupi', so one has no idea what they really meant. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot you can confirm the spelling of "Kamrupi" (কামৰূপী) in one of the old stable version of the article, inspite of transliteration issues.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Assamese spelling কামৰূপী is moot because we are using the original spelling here, which is in English alphabet. Transliteration is not an issue.

What is significant, on the other hand, is that Goswami accepts, in toto, Sharma's contention—that "there developed a prakrit in Kamarupa; that the period is 6th century to 12th century (which is roughly the same period as determined in Toulmin, who sets the period for proto-Kamarupa to before 1250). Chaipau (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In English both the spelling are used, the issue here is WP:COMMONNAME, Goswami has not used M.M Sharma's name nor his view because he (Sharma) is not expert on this nor his work concerned about Kamrupi language, also Toulmin does not deal with language of our concern (RSN stated that it cannot be used for our purpose, as it is about modern lects of North Bengal, further west of Assam).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Goswami is an expert on the Assamese language, so he can speak for Kamrupi dialect. Kamarupi Prakrit is about corrupt forms in Sanskrit inscriptions, so Sharma is the authority on Kamarupi Prakrit. According to WP:DRN, the two are different languages, but you keep insisting they are same. Please help in resolving this issue—accept the resolution at WP:DRN and go from there. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Who said old language is not Assamese, quote of Goswami, Sen and others reads "Assamese first entered into Western Assam or Kamrup". Sharma's passing comment does not implies research (although he is usable on inscriptions article). As pointed earlier we have full fledged literature in this language, corrupt form in Sanskrit works comment does not pass scrutiny. DRN do said they are different, but it also talks of inclusion of all viewpoints, especially of linguists in this case.Add some works on old language in resource section, although i believe there are none on it, that means this article will remain as stub.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

{

To answer the original question in this subsection, yes, it will be useful to add the following reference to the first sentence of the second paragraph of version A:

The evidence of this MIA exists in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There are issues in that, first citation is not saying anything on "systematic errors in Sanskrit inscriptions", the second citation is not usable because it has translation problem from original Assamese language.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a slightly extended version of the quotation from Sharma would help. As for the (real) transliteration problems, we are wisely using the form given by our source in a Latin-script alphabet. We would need better reasons than you give to change this practice. What translation problems are you referring to? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, add said extended version, we reproduce exactly what sources are saying (in this case non-English source), both Sanskritised spelling and phoneme is used in English, which of this you are considering for that source and why. The issue of inaccurate translation from Assamese to English language (the problem of using non-English sources).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Richard Keatinge, here is the extended quote from Sharma. Unfortunately, the extended quote covers a good two-three pages of the book. So I am writing down only some significant sentences. Furthermore, I am writing down a quote from Goswami 1971 itself (originally in English), which very clearly uses Kamarupa Prakrit. This should end the objection to Kamarupa once and for all, even though the issue is moot now, the move request having ended.

The evidence of this MIA exist in systematic errors in the Sanskrit language used in the Kamarupa inscriptions.

The quote from Goswami 1971 can be examined here. [8] This text does not appear on a web-search because of the use of diacritics, and it underlines the perils of using search results to establish WP:COMMONNAME. This is also the reason why Bhaskarbhagawati missed it, because he seems to relying on web-searches alone in his research, and which is also the source of his many false positives in this and other issues.

Chaipau (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We have thesis of Goswami (i am glad you now quoted him for older form of language which you resisted earlier) which can be used to quote him, instead of web searches for snippet views, i also understand your difficulty of quoting full three pages of Sarma 1978, can you provide the first fifteen lines of each page because it is important and need to be verified.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Process discussion.

If this is under DRN discussion then this should not also be an RfC (see WP:TALKFORK), and people should not be making substantive changes to the material under dispute until the dispute is resolved; reverting to the stable version before this dispute erupted is probably a good plan. I didn't see that the RfC was pursuant to the DRN in the first place. It is not sufficient that Chaipau is convinced these things are facts; they have to come from reliable secondary sources (see WP:AEIS and WP:SYNTH). Removing the sources doesn't seem justifiable either. Chaipau may turn out to be entirely correct, but this is not the way to get our article there. PS: We also can't take that much text verbatim from a source, as in the first of these footnotes for ver. 2, per WP:COPYRIGHT and MOS:BQ. PS, re "We should not use names from prior to 1978 when the language was still a speculative conjecture": I agree, other than that we should mention these names (once), then continue using one of the more current ones. Readers need to understand why they ended up at this article via redirect, and so on. WP doesn't hide minority names for these even if we don't use them in WP's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @SMcCandish: There is no stable version of the lede, and it has been under dispute since 2012, for seven years now. The RfC is part of the WP:DRN---and that will likely spawn a number of RfCs. There has been one definite resolution in the DRN. That the two articles are about two entirely different entities. Bhaskarbhagawati has been trying to either delete the article on Prakrit, or at the very least establish a strong relationship. The opposing view is that they are different and should have independent growth in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC) User:SMcCandlish - You may have been called into the middle of this by User:Legobot and may be unaware of its recent history. If you have a better idea for how to resolve this than by a lengthy DRN discussion that was mandated by WP:ANI and is resulting in Requests for Comment when the parties do not agree, I would be glad to accept your advice. It is very true that editors should not be making substantive changes to the material under dispute, and I have specified in the mediation rules that there are to be no changes made to the material while discussion is in progress. If you have a better idea as to how to resolve this dispute, such as edit-warring, or a Fourth Opinion, or referring the dispute to the Editorial Board, please provide your suggestions. In the meantime, my plan is to identify the areas of disagreement and put each of them to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Ah, I didn't see that the DRN itself called for this RfC (and perhaps more of them); my bad. As with the other RfC on a similar topic, it would be helpful it we weren't given some kind of "pick A or pick B" choice in a vacuum. Even aside from the false-dichotomy problem, it's not really about the wording, but about the alleged facts being asserted (and on the basis of what sources), regardless of the exact wording used to make those claims. And there are multiple of them in each of the two versions. There may also be some kind of SYNTH or UNDUE issue to resolve. These may be separate RfC questions. But just picking A or B exact wording, each full of potentially controversial questions, is probably futile; our wording is not set permanently, so if the RfC picked one version, it might look nothing like that in a month anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC) User:SMcCandlish - Yes. Do you know of a better way? I sort of feel like saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way," but that would be rude. So: Do you want to lead (by taking over the mediation, or by offering RFCs)? Do you want to follow (by !voting in the RFC, or with Third Opinion)? Do you want to lead us somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I'm happy to follow, but I won't follow if we're going to walk around in circles or head over a cliff. :-) I think I've already suggested what to do: RfC much more specific questions, about what alleged facts with what sources should be in the article, instead of proposing paragraph blocks that won't stay the same for long anyway, and which mix 'n' match all sorts of alleged facts, some of which are disputed for unrelated reasons. PS: WP:3O will not work here; it's only usable when there's a dispute just between two editors. Now that this has gone to ANI, DRN, and RfCs, it's a broader community matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC) User:SMcCandlish Any future comments about how to conduct the dispute resolution should go on my talk page, unless you wish to be one of the parties to the dispute. Comments on my talk page are accepted; additional parties are accepted. Do not backseat drive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC) When you have given as many Third Opinions as I have, and declined to give as many Third Opinions due to already have more than two editors as I have, I will be interested in your advice about how Third Opinion works. Perhaps I wasn't sarcastic enough, because I hadn't again suggested a Fifth Opinion or a referral to the Academic Council. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC) At this point, I would like to thank user:Robert McClenon for persisting with this effort and giving both the sides (even though there is only one user on one side), an even chance. It is a difficult situation, with very few experts on the subject. I have spent considerable time on Wikipedia and am keen on seeing the process through. The process till now has yielded two results, in my opinion: The two articles Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are about two entirely different subjects and Kamrupi dialect cannot claim undue claim on Kamarupi Prakrit over other dialects. There is no consensus on a change of name for Kamarupi Prakrit, for now. Could we examine the substantial facts, given the two version of the texts. I drew up a list, but then deleted it, since I am one of the disputing parties. Any help? Chaipau (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Digression not directly related to this RFC

The issue since 2012 is of WP:V, when long standing community created single article named Kamrupi was divided into "Kamarupi Prakrit" and "Kamrupi dialect", without sources explicitly saying so. The dispute came to this stage due to persistent forceful removal of linguitic sources (U.N Goswami 1970, G.C Goswami 1982, Kaliram Medhi 1936, M Sengupta 2016 etc.) which opined both are one single language namely "Kamrupi language", and the undue weight given to passing comment of non-linguistic sources like Mukunda Madhava Sharma 1978 (Kamarupi Prakrit used by him once in a comment, so 1978 was not a significant year as suggested by Chaipau). I believe if all the viewpoints were acommodated, we had a better version of article without bothering ANI and DRN.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Mukanda Madhava Sharma is a Sanskrit expert, who established the Sanskrit Department at Gauhati University, according to its website (http://gauhati.ac.in/old-website/sanskrit.php). His works are held in 444 holding across the globe, and his book, 'Inscriptions of Ancient Assam'—in which he reports his findings of corrupt Sanskrit forms, constructs the underlying Prakrit language and names it as Kamarupi Prakrit—is widely available across the globe (https://www.worldcat.org/title/inscriptions-of-ancient-assam/oclc/993047935). The work that examines the issue with comparative method, the PhD thesis of Toulmin (2006), is actually available on the web in its full glory (https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/45743). The issue of WP:V raised by Bhaskarbhagawati is false. Bhaskarbhagawati, who is a blogger (https://bhaskarbhagawati.blogspot.com/) focusing on Kamrup "nationalism", has been holding Wikipedia at ransom, turning its rules against itself all the while pushing a fringe point of view. The DRN as well as the record of discussion will show that his reading of the sources are accepted by no one except himself. His one-time ally has been banned for WP:SOCK. He has content forked article (for example Ancient Kamrup as a fork of Kamarupa) to push his point of view. All his sources are prior to 1978 and he is peddling snippets of cited quotes from periods when the area of research was still speculative. He has been resisting the use of Sharma (1978) because it went counter to his point of view. The technique to reject a source as unacceptable is not new to Bhaskarbhagawati. In 2012 when I introduced the work of Upendranath Goswami (diff) Bhaskarbhagawati deleting it (diff, diff, diff). The edits in July 2012 on Kamrupi dialect is instructive on what Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to achieve here. Upendranath Goswami has himself adopted the name Kamarupi Prakrit in his book (in Assamese) from 1991; but Bhaskarbhagawati keeps refusing to do so. He keeps harping on older references that too without proper citation, misidentifying authors, and mis-interpreting what the text says. Chaipau (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC) @Abecedare:, @Aeusoes1: apropos WP:ANI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati_and_Kamarupi) WP:AGF is a hindrance to this issue, it seems. The false presentations by Bhaskarbhagawati, e.g. WP:V above, means we are re-litigating this over and over again. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC) We don't need to abandon AGF to acknowledge the problems here. Whether Bhaskarbhagawati is acting in bad faith or is just incompetent, his proposed changes don't pass the muster of WP:RS. Just look at this recent edit where he goes back to saying there's no merit to even splitting the two articles, despite all the evidence that's been given. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, I do see that the discussion is still circular and repetitive, which makes it difficult to separate the current topic of discussion from issues that were apparently settled (eg, whether there should be two articles or one; see Moderator's 9th statement, 2nd point). However, I would still request the participants to not police each others behavior during the DRN process and trust that the moderator Robert McClenon is observing and will intervene as and when necessary. Instead, focus on presenting your (concise and source-based) case for any proposed changes. That is the only way for this process to work without breaking down into confusing and frustrating cross-talk that has lasted for >7 years. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC) This seems to have resumed because User:Bhaskarbhagawati is taking issue with the established consensus that we have two articles. Are you proposing that these two articles be merged? If so, I think that that is beyond the scope of this dispute resolution. Otherwise, stop the vague complaints about removal of content, and cooperate with the process of improving the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC) More within the next six hours. But stop complaining about having two articles, or ask about whether to go outside of this DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Abecedare Yes, I continue to be committed to the DRN process. Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) I have cleared my position against several accusations by Chaipau and Aeusoes here. The above long statement by Chaipau with time stamp 14:38, 19 May 2019 is misleading, some of which was already addressed some time back.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you to write version A. This is because in version A, rather than version B, it details exactly what this language is and what exactly distinguishes it from another language. Of course, the references to version B are newer, as , but the reliability and certainty of reference would have no effect on using version A.--Byeori Kim (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Historical Comment

Should the statement in the second paragraph, "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.". be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Do not discuss in the Survey. Discuss in the Threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Yes. While it may be true to say that a language displays (in some sense) a mixture of its ancestors, its contemporaneous relatives, and its descendants, it is difficult to imagine how stating so can be helpful to the reader. Additionally, the sentence is confusing to any reader who does not already know what "Sporadic Apabhramsa" may be. This sentence should be removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Resources for commentators

I am opening this section for all those who are new to this discussion, and unable to comment on it due their unfamiliarity with the subject. I have initiated and participated discussions on this subject since 2012, most probably i will not in future on same issues as current ones. I am adding resources on the subject, so that uninvolved editors can take well informed decision in light of their acquired knowledge. I also invite other involved editors to add resources they deemed fit.

Material

• A Study on Kamrupi a dialect of Assamese, i have listed this work first because its author Upendranath Goswami wrote exclusively and more than anybody else on the subject, thank you.

भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not true. Upendranath Goswami's work is considered standard for Kamrupi dialect, not for Kamarupi Prakrit. The two are different and it has been resolved via a WP:DRN. I urge you to please adhere to the WP:DRN resolution, so we can move forward in this discussion. Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We are concerned about first Indo-Aryan language of Assam, irrespective of its title.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the WP:DRN resolution, the first Indo-Aryan language in Assam is different from Kamrupi dialect. Goswami's work is on modern Kamrupi dialect, not on the older language. Chaipau (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Commentators are best judge of what this work about, this section is for resources on the subject, so i cannot further reply.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kamrupi dialect which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)