This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Whilst a modern-day television advert is clearly not significant in the way that cultural writings may be, it strikes me that the power of modern media is great. Thus, my first knowledge that Konkani even existed (I live in Scotland) was through its use in the soundtrack of the latest Nike advert depicting an Indian street cricket game. I wondered if any of the contributors to this wiki might be interested in picking up on that fact and including it in an appropriate entry.
I have heard about it but haven't seen it yet(No TV :-(). We could add it in a trivia section. although I am not sure about its usefulness. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK I have watched the clip, although it seems a bit funny to me. The setting is shown to be Mumbai, (although it was shot in Raigad). A bit surprising that a Goan Konkani song should be chosen for Cricket because Goans are more partial to football. I could have suggested a couple of Marathi songs if they wanted! I am not sure of the song. It seems that "Rav Patrao Rav" is a cover of another song called "Bebdo"(or is it "bevdo" :-P). Ok, once I get the facts straight I will put the line in a Trivia section. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Script Warriors please stay out!!!!
We dont want people fighting over whiich script is native or which script should deserve the first place. Kannadigas and Marathis , please start a seperate web page to carry out your silly battles. Dont use Konkani as your playground
Deepak D'Souza 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
POV Discussions
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Role of Portugal and Portugese
There is a definite tone of POV to this article, particularly the sentences "the present lack of any pre-Portuguese Konkani literature points to the unmerciful destruction of the Konkani heritage. That the language itself survives the more than 400 years of alien subjugation attests to the resilience of nomadic Konkani people." The first statement needs a citation, or at least a demosntration that konkani literature existed prior to the portuguese arrival, which the portugues destroyed. Describing portuguese as "alien" is a little odd, as it is the liturgical language of a significant section of the population, just as sanskrit is (a language, incidentally, also brought by invaders). It's obvious that the writer here has an anti-portuguese bias.
The argument that Portuguese is not an alien language is facile. The fact that it is now spoken by number of people does not make it less alien, a la English. Period.
The argument is not facile at all. Unless you wish to include Hindi as an alien language, or any other non-Dravidian tongue. A language is alien if it is felt to be alien. This is a sociolinguistic categorization, and it is not made clear that Portuguese is felt to be so [i]by Konkani speakers[/i]
p97dav45 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
moved part of article
I've moved the Konkani language section from the Konkani article here. This follows the pattern often used by other languages/peoples.Martin.Budden 16:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
English as language of Goan Catholics
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What is the source of the contention that English is a widely spoken language among Goan Catholics? To my knowldge Goan Catholics do not speak English in any greater proportions than other Indian communities. Goan Catholics (in Goa at least) speak Konkani as a primary languae, with sections of the upper classes speaking Potuguese. In fact, even the epithet for Goan Christians, Makapao, comes from an alleged tendency to say "Deva, maka pav", which is an appeal to God in Konkani. The image of Goan Catholics speaking English as a first language is largely Bollywood derived. --Kunal(talk) 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
i am in complete agreement that there is no greater proportion of english speakers in goa, but is the article trying to say that there are more english medium schools than before and fewer portuguese ones?--964267sr 02:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it is probably beyond much doubt that English has overtaken Potuguese as the dominant foreign language in Goa, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that English has replaced the Konkani language among Goan Catholics, or any other demographic in Goa.
--Kunal(talk) 09:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The following sentence seems not to follow from the rest of the section:
"The missionaries realized the importance of propagating in local tongues and translated Christian Literature into Konkani and sometimes Marathi, the most notable among them being Fr Thomas Stephens."
The section is about the history of the Konkani language. The para mentions what changes took place in the Konkani world during the Portuguese rule. I feel It is relevant to mention the missionaries because
1) It led to the first printed work in Konkani(and supposedly the first printed work in India, I have to verify it)
2) The absence of Christian literature in Konkani may have led to a total delinking between culture and religion among Konkani Catholics.
3) It was in contravention of a ban imposed on Konkani by the Portuguese.
OK, but Fr Stephens's work was prior to the ban. This sentence was tacked on in such a way as to seem to contradict the paragraph two previous. Ventifax 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your right! Silly of me not to have noticed the discrepancy. Thanks for the rework , Ventifax. --Deepak D'Souza 04:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Konakani and Marathi.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Konkani is an dialect of Marathi.I dont why Konkani people are denying the fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahawiki (talk • contribs)
While your comment seems a little inflammatory, as a native speaker, I am still moved to say Konkani is a difficult to place linguistically either an ancestor of Marathi, an offshoot of Marathi that is now a separate language or a cousin of Marathi.--964267sr 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the comment is inflammatory, and now it has also been included in the introductory paragraph (by Mahawiki). Mahawiki, do you have citations or sources for your claim? If yes, please refer to them in the article. Since there appears to be no concensus on the relationship between M and K, I have placed a neutral sentence in the Intro paragraph (basically a rewording og 964267sr's statement). If there is better information available, please cite and modify my change. But please discuss here. Regards, Gajamukhu 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
hello ... I have this up for submission. User:Alnico
// the text in this submission was deleted because of two reasons:
1. It is too long and winding, not to the pint
2. The article in itself could be copyrght material
It would be an improvement if someone could get some textbooks out and tell us what the different views about Konkani's position in the family of languages is, who said what, what the evidence is as they present it, and let the reader decide which scholar is more sensible, rather than us putting the words in. Certainly it is in dispute, or seems to be. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
Konkani and Marathi
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Konkani is a dialect of Marathi.According to linguist Griarson,on the basis of peculirity of sounds, grammatical processes, vocablary,Konkani is a dialect of Marathi.(Source: Marathi Vishwakosh-Khand 12,(Pg.1197) Publisher:Maharashtra Rajya Vishwakosh Nirmiti Mandal,Mumbai.A project funded by Govt. Of India and Govt. of Maharashtra)
Konkani is recognised as a seperate language due to dirty politics played by Konkani (and few Kannadi)politicians .Denying Marathi-Konkani relation is like disowning ur own parent.Nevertheless this doesnt change the history.Konkani remains as sweet and lovable for us as it was before.
It seems the article perhaps has metions of 'my POV'.So I am not exactly unhappy with this article.mahawiki 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So POV is good as long as it is yours?Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is important to have info to explain how langauages are related to other languages - you should put this in from your book? and also explain why the other people think it is not without putting in POV like Karnataka politics in there. This is about an academic debate not a political classifcation. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
By my POV i mean what I belive is true.And its a fact that the feud between Marathi and Konkani has been created by kannada leaders. Mahawiki 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty irresponsible to say that Konkani is a dialect. Especially if one can clearly see that the two have differect grammar systems. Any similarity can easily be attributed to the fact that both are language evolved from Sanskrit. Just because one can understand one language because of knowledge of the other does not justify it a language to be considered to be a dialect. If such were the case Gujrati or Marathi could be considered a dialect of the other, the same goes for in Europe with Portuguese and Spanish. If gaining National Language status helps preserve this unique "dialect" as some would like to call it, so be it, it would at the very least ensure the continued use of it and would prevent speakers from "reverting" to the "mainstream". I would like to add another point, is the fact that Konkani people fleeing the persecution during the Goa Inquisitions chose to move to Southern Canara with a foreign language, instead of emigrating to Maharashtra, which would not have been the case if indeed the Konkani was just a dialect.
One has to just see Mahawiki's profile to know that he is just here to push his own political beliefs and lingusitic jingoism! Do we really need to discus his points when he has stated for himself that he is here just to push a pro-Marathi and pro-Maharashtra stance. Let me phrase his own line:" Maharashtra or Marathi cannot be defamed by wikipedia and just because some nonsense is written here"
As far as the simmilarity is concerned it depends on the dialect. A Marathi speaker may undestand Malvani or Goan saraswat Konkani somewhat easily, but will be at a loss when he/she tries to understand Chitrapur Saraswat Konkani. Malvani may sound very similar to Marathi because it's speakers have been bilingual for 300-400 years, thus enabling Marathi influences. Konkani speakers in Karnataka frequently borrow Tulu and Kannada words(even the accents are affected). Does that mean that Konkani is a dialect of Tulu or Kannada??
Will Marathis agree to call Marathi as a dialect of Hindi simply becasue a Hindi speaker can easily understand Marathi?
Another thing, this "Konkani is a dialect of Marathi" line has not come out of any love that Marathis have for Konkani. It is only used to delude themselves that Goa and Konkani speaking areas of Karnataka (such as Karwar ) are theirs by virtue of a vague resemblance in the languages.
m (Konkani is a independent language.Its transliteration in either language is unacceptable.Article has mentions of Konkani being written in Nagari and Kannada script.)"
How come Mahawiki suddenly decided that Konkani was an Independent language???
Deepak D'Souza 08:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Possible inconsistency
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If the third wave of influence dates to 1683-1740, does it predate the first wave? Poweroid 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Konkani and Kannada script
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
As this source which had been cited before some editors removed it shows, the Kannada script is used by Konkani speaking people in Karnataka. And the biggest population of Konkanis anywhere in the world is in Karnataka. Konkanis in Karnataka outnumber Konakanis in Goa 3 to 1. Also the Konkanis of Goa use both Roman and Nagari scripts while the Konkanis in Karnataka use only Kannada script. So I request the admins to unprotect the page or atleast put it back themselves. Gnanapiti 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that only the Kannada script is used by Konkanis in Karnataka. Chitrapur Saraswats, for example, have their roots in Karnataka, but their regular publication "Kanara Saraswat" uses Roman script for English articles and Nagari for Konkani articles. There is no Kannada anywhere in sight. Shri Chitrapur Math uses both Nagari and Kannada scripts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.192.120 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Kannada script is not the main or official script of Konkani. nagari is used more extensively by Konkanis in Maharashtra and Goa.While Roman Malayalam and Naskh are also used.There's is no need to include each and every script.Nagari transliteration is enough.
Does Mahawiki know anything about Karnataka apart from Belgaum???Who gave hiom the right to speak on behalf of Konkanis?? It may not be Kannada script may not be the official script , but it is THE MOST WIDELY USED script in Konkani. Ask any Konkani from Canara coast!
Maharashtra and Goa are not the only places where Konkani is spoken. There are more konkani speakers in Karnataka than in Goa, who use Kannada script for writing Konkani. Karnataka is also the only state, which has a Konkani sahitya academy to promote konkani literature. Most of the Konkani literature coming out of Karnataka is in Kannada script. All these facts are substantiated by the references added. Naveenbm 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If someone intends to do their original research and bag nobel by claiming "Kannada is not the main script for Konkani" withour proper citations, they are most encouraged to do so in the upcoming Konkani Sahitya conference and not here. "Karnataka Konkani Sahitya Academy"(only state which has an academy for Konkani literature) has adopted Kannada as the official script for Konkani in Karnataka where there are more number of Konkani speakers than Goa. This article in Konkani world precisely explains the issue.Gnanapiti 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
External Links
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please understand that the External links column is meant to provide relevant sources for academic interest, not chat groups or personal home pages
I had removed many such links , keeping only those which I felt were necessary. But it seems that some users are already putting them back. I will not revert them to prevent an editing war, but I advice discretion on behalf of Konkani Wikipeians
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Konknni friends,
Konkani Wikipedia has been started and been in test stage since August 2006
Kindly contribute towards the Konkani wikipedia. We intend to make it a multiscript
Wikipeida. At least tri-script with Roman ,Devanangiri and Kannada scripts since these are the most popular ones
We would like to get more articles/templates in place.
We also need volunteers to do the thankless and boring job of transliterating it to different scripts
As of now only two members are making active contributions. The more the merrier. Your contribution is vital to its success.
Dev boro dees deum! -Deepak D'Souza 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Article needs rewowrking
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I appreciate the efforts made by User:MaximvsDecimvs but I feel it has gone off the point, simply to keep neutrality. It tends to give a wrong impression that a lot of people (implying even Konkanis) doubt Konkanis status as an independent language. Matter of Fact: only Marathis (that too not all) treat Konkani as a dialect of Marathi. At the most pessimistic, I will hazard a guess that not more than 10% of Konkanis agree.
Secondly with a lot of edits to the Konkani v/s Marathi Section , it seems to appear the the entire Konkani Language article is only about the Konkani v/s Marathi feud. Please shorten it to a single Paragraph of not more than 5-6 lines.
I propose to put a seperate article on "The History of Konkani Language " which will provide a detailed
history and can have a very lengthy discussion on Konkani v/s Marathi. Lets keep the present article as it is now.Once the History article is in place ( I have completed it halfway and will put it up in a couple of days), keep only relevant facts in the main article on Konkani Language.--Deepak D'Souza 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That Konkani is a dialect of Marathi is a crank theory and should be treated as such. It is a theory that finds no support from linguists. That said, we certainly should mention it, but spending more than 3-4 lines to explain it is definitely overkill. Sarvagnya 07:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the so-called theory is widely accepted in Maharashtra (amongst the Marathis and Konkanis) and many linguists have supported it. Morever try to understand the fact that Konkani is not sole property of Goa. I wonder Dnyaneshwari being in Konkani and other 'crank throries' shall also find place here! Maharashtraexpress 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
w.r.t Maharashtraexpress
1. Does the fact that the theory finds acceptance wide acceptance in Maharashtra (most of whome may never have heard a word of Konkani)weigh more than a long established belief among Konkanis?
2. Even if we assume that all Konkanis in Maharshtra treat Konkani as a dialect of Marathi(which I doubt!) do their number overrun the opinion of other Konkanis?
Let me place the numbers as per the 1991 census:
of the 17,60,607 Konkani speakers in India 6,02,626 are in Goa, 7,06,397 in Karnataka, 3,12,618 in Maharashtra and 64,008 in Kerala
Now do the math.
2. How many linguists? Are you aware that the Sahitya Akademi had put the issue in front of a neutral panel in 1975 which accepted Konkani as an independent language.
3. Correct Konkani is not Goa's property. Konkani is nobody's property . We don't own Konkani. We belong to Konkani, aamchem maaimbhas!
4. Where is Dyaneshwari mentioned in this article?
Thank you for your comments. My purpose behind rewriting that section was that it had become a little too wayward, and wasn't being faithful to the source that it quoted. I realize that my changes might have become somewhat verbose in the process. However, my efforts were aimed at not losing sight of what the cited source says and to be neutral at the same time.
Of course, my edits are, in no way, ideal. Could you tell me which part of the section is off-track and gives a wrong impression that even Konkanis doubt the status of Konkani? If you give me your feedback, I can tell you why I wrote that particular sentence and we can work from there to make it better.
Coming to why this section looks bigger than the rest, the reason is simply that no one has added much information about Konkani grammar, vocabulary, phonology and other technical linguistic details. If info about these aspects of the language is added, it will make the article much more robust and readable, and perhaps then the Konkani-Marathi section won't look that bloated. That said, I am inclined to agree that if we have a separate article about the history of Konkani, we can leave the crux of the matter from the Konkani-Marathi section here and explain the finer details in the new article.
A final word. I think there's a lot of material out there that documents the relationship between these two languages. While reading this well-written source, I felt that it provided a wealth of information and further references regarding the history of the language and its journey to date. Although Konkani has now been certified by many linguistic scholars as an independent language and Konkanis are more aware about their language than in the past, there has been some notable and significant history between itself and Marathi. It would not do justice to the spirit of Wikipedia to dismiss or cut out this information due to personal prejudices.
If u dont want to acknowledge those who dont think Konkani is a language so be it. FYI the Konkanis in Maharashtra report themselves as Maharashtrians (and language as Marathi). Since u r in Maharashtra,u will perhaps understand it sometime later. Anyways i shall not disturb u guys again. Hope u will give justice to this article. Maharashtraexpress 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, 3,12,618 is quite a sizeable number to deserve a mention,no? Maharashtraexpress 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the heading of that section at the first place. What does Konkani vs Marathi mean? Is there a war between two languages? A heading like "Konkani and Marathi controversy" or something like that would sound apt. Gnanapiti 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Konkani name in Kannada script
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
I noticed this difference between ಕೊಂಕಣಿ and ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ only yesterday, while reading a leaflet from a Konkani cassete. But it is true. Blame it on the fact that I had not studied Kannada. ATleast among Mangalorean Christians it is spellt as KomkNi not as kom-ka-Ni with a half ka and Na.
The fist thing I did was phone my parents and ask them, they have confimed it. And for as long as i can remember , we always said KoMkni , not Konkani or KonkaNI
Another thing is that whle writing in Devanagiri a long "ii" is used (कोंकणी)while in Kannada script short "i" ("कोंक्णि" not कोंक्णी)is used.Perhaps some people may be aware that in Maharashtra the language is reffered to as ko-ka-nii, not koM-ka-Ni. I would like to know if other dialects in Karnataka such as GSB spell it differently
One of the many mysteries of Konkani. With such diverse styles ,scripts and dailects, even the name is spellt differently.I am looking for online resources to confirm it. --Deepak D'Souza 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised by your behaviour KMN!. You have asked for consensus.But twice you reverted the edits ,without discussing it first or seeking consensus. What is your idea of consensus?Something that only you find agreeable is consensus?
In Kannada articles ಕೊಂಕಣಿ is used whereas in Konkani (Kannada script) articles ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ is used.Even Marathis spell "Konkani "different from the way Konkanis spell it. The article should mention how the word "Konkani" is written in Konkani( Kannada script). Not how it is written in the Kannada language .
The source you have mentioned is a Kannada website, not a Konkani website.
Even in Romi lipi , used commonly in Goa the common representation used is "Konknni" not "Konkani"
In Kannada , the sound ಅಂ is spelt as "am" , without the nasal sound. Konkanis, while using Kannada use it to represent the nasal sound "ṃ"
Last of all, what I have put is not original research. As I have said in the spoken form "KonkNI" is used, not Konkani.
Ok. Deepak, I agree that when we pronounce it(in Ktaka), it is always koMkNi and never as 'koMkaNi. But then, this is the case with thousands of words in Kannada or any language for that matter where there is a slight difference in the way its written and the way its said. In this case, I took a look at the site you gave(maibhaas.com) and if you observe carefully, he uses both spellings. Maibhaas, a Konkani site in Kannada script uses both spellings and several kannada sites write it as koMkaNi. So anyway you see it, the usage of koMkaNi far outnumbers koMkNi.
Having said that, I for one, do not mind representing both spellings in this article. What do the others say? Sarvagnya 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, please note that the way a word is pronounced is not the correct representation of that word in a particular script, but rather the way it is written should be adapted as the correct spelling. For example there are words like ಕಂಬಳಿ, ತಂಬುಳಿ in Kannada which when we talk morph into ಕಂಬ್ಳಿ and ತಂಬ್ಳಿ. That doesn't make the latter words correct. "Is not" or "am not" becomes "ain't" when we talk but that doesn't make "ain't" the correct way of writing. ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ is very much a contraction of the original ಕೊಂಕಣಿ and should not be promoted as correct. Gnanapiti 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to echo whatever Gnanapiti has stated above. A word might have different dialects, but in the written form usually it has only one spelling. Just as an example, Kannadigas never pronounce Bengaluru as ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, and Mangalooru as ಮಂಗಳೂರು. Instead, they always use, ಬೆಂಗ್ಳೂರ್ and ಮಂಗ್ಳೂರ್ while talking. Don't you agree here? But does that allow to write the same in articles? Certainly not, as seen in Bangalore and Mangalore articles. To summarize, ಕೊಂಕಣಿ is the correct written form, which might have ಕೊಂಕ್ಣಿ as one of the spoken forms. Hope this helps. - KNMTalk 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
KNM and G, point taken. But the point is I never claimed that koMkNi=koMkaNi. Let me put it this way. There are three things here..
But, after seeing maibhas.com, where we have a native koMkNi speaker write it as 'koMkNi', I was put in two minds. Frankly, I am now a little confused about what the correct pronunciation is. However, Deepak should also remember one thing.
Even if 'koMkNi' is the "Correct Pronunciation" and also the "Correct 'spelling'", we will need reliable sources to establish that. Until now, maibhas.com is the only source that we have which spells it as 'koMkNi'. All other sites including Dr U R Ananthamurthy's blog which KNM pointed out, spell it as koMkaNi. So I am afraid that we will also have to simply go with koMkaNi and not koMkNi because even if you(Deepak) are right, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. Sarvagnya 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes maibhass.com uses both, but if you take a close look most used is komkni instead of komkani. Premkudva has voted in favour of Komkani and since he is a Konkani too ,I have to give weightage to opinion.
I will let the issue be but not without putting my points of dissent:
1. Portuguese write Konkani as Concanim. Should the fact that it was the portuguese who introduced the Roman script . So should Goans stop writing it as Konknni which is their version of Roman transiteration.
2. The casette cover which I had mentioned as the source of my doubt , is produced by Mandd Sobhann, a cultural organization founded by Shri. Eric Ozario who is also the present president of the Karnataka Konkani Sahitya Akademi.
Anyway, let things be. I am working on a more detailed version of this article and intend to put it up today evening --Deepak D'Souza 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Reworked the article
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Done a major rework of this article. Added a detailed history section. More details, links refs etc. --Deepak D'Souza 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Perso-Arabic language?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
" It has influences from many other languages including Portuguese, Kannada, Marathi and Perso-Arabic."
According to the article on Perso-Arabic, it is a writing system, not a language. Calling it a language makes no more sense than calling "Roman" a language. There is a "Roman" writing system (we're using it), but no "Roman" language. 4.243.146.177 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right about that. The reason it is referred to (incorrectly) as Perso-Arabic is that many Indian languages have influences from Persian and/or Arabic languages and it becomes difficult to seperate the two.The script can be called as Perso-Arabic though. Perhaps some Konkani who knows more about the Arabic script can help us in this matter? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a copy of the comments I have posted on the talk page of User:Sp0076 w.r.t his/her changes to the introductory paragraph and my subsequent reversal. Please feel free to go through the history of the article and comment on the changes.
The Dravidian influence isn't just restricted to dialects in Kanara but also to the main substrate(This is apart form the Tulu/Kannada loan-words in Kanarese dialects). The number of words with Dravidian roots is pretty high as compared with its closest relatives. Some Konkani researchers argue that Konkani cannot be considered to be just an Indo-Aryan language due to its possible origins as a language of the Kukna tribe.
The line Other than the Perso-Arabic influence, in my opinion, gives the reader the incorrect impression that the Persian-Arabic influence is very high as compared to others. This is not to deny that the Arabic loan-words are not restricted to the dialects spoken by Konkani Muslims but also shows in other dialects.
The regional variations are mentioned in the section: Migration and Fragmentation. although yes, it could be mentioned in greater detail .We still have to put a section called Features of Konkani. It is better to keep the introduction short and sweet.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Worked on the paragraphs dealing with the Origins; Removed references to "Aryans." No offense meant to others whose writing I edited. Feel free to add to and edit, but don't wholesale delete. Thanks --ArunShanbhag 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
OK Rather than "wholsale delete" :-) I will explain the changes I disagree with:
Origins: I understand that most sources cite the Konkani languages as being brought to Goa by the Saraswats. But the migration wasnt just of Saraswats alone. If it was, then there wouldnt be other castes among Konkanis. Aryans is a more general term.
origins:Alternate theory: The statement he newer migrants from the banks of the Saraswati reiver who settled in the Konkan incorporated aspects of the local language goes quite differently from the article cited therein. The article suggests that the Konkani Language may not be Indo-Aryan in origin but a tribal langyuage which was later sanskritised.
1900 BCE corresponds to roughly 4000 years ago. Most accounts of the drying up of the Saraswati put it between 2000-2500 years ago.
Inquisition: It is a common but mistaken belief that the Inquisition was responsible for conversions. The fact is much of the conversions were effected BEFORE the Inquisition.And the inquision was not targeted at Hindus, but primarily at Jews and Christians. Anyway the actual details of the Portuguese rule are not relevant here except for the effects it had on the language itself. This issue had become a controversial point before so it really doesnt serve to go into it again. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
daitrics
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the section Notable works in Konkani should "daitrics" be diacritics? O'RyanW (☺₪) 06:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing details
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have removed the tables of the Word Formation section. It's not at all required. Kensplanet (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
IAST!
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
According to IAST standards Konkani should be written as koṅkaṇī and not koṃkaṇī, there is no अं(ṃ) sound in the word Konkani but its the ङ(ṇ) sound that needs to be stressed.
For instance:
Anga or अंग must be written as aṇga and not aṃga
Whereas ṃ is to be used when we write words like amba ie.IAST aṃbā
It is technically not wrong to write an anusvara as ṃ in IAST or as ṁ in ISO 15919 ('Simplified nasalization option'), which might be even preferable when one wants to show letter-by-letter transliteration. But you're right that it's usually written ṅ before a k-varga consonant when it actually means ङ ('Strict nasalization option'). See also Wikipedia:Indic_transliteration_scheme#Nasalisation.
It should be better not to use IAST anyway. IAST is for Sanskrit, and unlike Sanskrit, some of the scripts used in that paragraph have both a short o and a long ō. In IAST, o is always long, while for example the Kannada script there says ಕೊ with a short o, not ಕೋ with a long o, so it's rather confusing in this case. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) also clearly states “Use {{IAST}} only for Sanskrit terms”. —Gyopi (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Pronunciation in IPA and transliteration in ISO 15919 are two different things. Like in many other articles, there should be a transliteration when there is a word written in an Indic script. See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Preferred_format_for_introducing_the_article_subject. So it is obvious that this edit should be reverted, but then again, it may be enough if we just transliterate कोंकणी, leaving ಕೊಂಕಣಿ and കൊങ്കണി not transliterated. Of course in theory, each of them should be transliterated separately, like in examples in Template:Indic. Especially in this case, the matra is actually different (o vs ō). But maybe no one is really interested in that part anyway. So I'll just revert the transliteration for कोंकणी only now. Or... should we put a transliteration for each of the three? —Gyopi (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason I removed it was because I thought that it was the IPA transcript but more importantly I felt that it clutters up the lead without really adding any value; particularly, since there are four scripts here. Also some Indian language articles ignore ISO transliteration altogether: see Bengali language for example. But I don't get the "o vs ō" point. The spoken vowels are different but both are represented by the same Devanagari charachter in Konkani. IMHO the ISO transliteration for all three scripts should be the same. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point: adding 3 transliterations may be a bit too much; but adding only one to Devanagari is not so bad, right? Transliteration means "How you spell it". Kannada and Malayalam scripts have both short o and long o, and the long o is written ō when transliterated. But whether or not the current transliteration is the best is another problem. Anusvara is usually written ṅ in this case like Nijgoykar pointed out, but like I said first it can be written ṁ too. It is also possible to use a tilde (ō̃ or something) if it means nasalization. I'm not sure which is actually the best. —Gyopi (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The present arrangement is fine. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that from the very beginning (2006), the language code for Konakni (Goan) was wrong in Template:Indic. I fixed it already but it was kon, which would mean Kongo language, totally unrelated here. Also, in Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Konkani in 2006, another wrong language code was used: knn, which would mean Konkani (individual language). Konkani (knn) is currently called Konkani (dialect of Marathi language) in wikipedia. Maybe it's questionable if it is neutral to call knn a dialect, when ISO states it's an individual language, but that's another problem. What I'd like to note here now is,
If anyone has ever used kon somewhere in WP to mean gom, please update it to gom to fix xml:lang and lang.
The disambiguation page Konkani is ambiguous. As seen above, gom and kon are very confusing. It may be okay to call Goan Konkani simply Konkani, but we'd better make it at least something like this:
Also note: the disambiguation page has {{Wiktionary}} which links to Konkani, which links to SIL:knn. In short, Wikipedia and Wikitionary use the same word "Konkani" to mean a different language: gom is called "Konkani" in Wikipedia while knn is called "Konkani" in Wikitionary. —Gyopi (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The description for knn as a dialect of Marathi is based on Griersons analysis , pciekd from roseta website [1]. ANyway it is not officialy recognised as an independent langauge, so the question of neutrality doesnt arise. Yes the wrong code was used in the Wikimedia inclubator request and Im not surprised that the nominator was confused . I was too. This article gives a clarification about the different codes: Konkani (macrolanguage). Please fix the wikitionary link. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deepak D'Souza, I do respect your works here, and I have questions. Please?
Konkani (macrolanguage) says Goan Konkani (gom) is the official language of the Indian state of Goa”, but Ethnologue says knn is the official language, not gom. Possibly Ethnologue is wrong (I do think it strange that Goan official language is not Goan (gom)), but maybe again WP is wrong here. We'd better check this asap, since the ISO code is important for many linguists and web browsers to identify the language. Especially, the Konkani version wikipedia /wiki/Wp/gom is now using gom. If Ethnologue is right, we're going to start the Konkani version using a wrong domain eventually (gom.wikipedia.org ?)
After some more research, I have a vague feeling that Wikitionary is right and Wikipedia is wrong. The Konkani language seems to be knn, like:
Also, [2] may be a bit too old for us living in the 21st century to totally rely upon. You just said it's in one old source, which is true, but ISO, SIL, and Ethnologue (2009) all say something different. And what you're talking about is the official status in India, which has nothing to do with the linguistic fact (recognized internationally) that both knn and gom are individual languages. —Gyopi (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :-). The problem, as you may have discovered (and I did when I did a major rework in 2006) is that you will find very little info on Konkani on the net; and yes it may be outdated, contradictory, confusing or even baised.
The ethnologue info keeps changing, often without a log. I just visited the site now after one year and found that Konkai(knn) was now spoken in Canada??(It should be gom, actually). And that one of the alternate names for gom was "Konanni"(their mistake , not mine!) and Southern Kanara! Makes me feel that some amature kid is sitting and updating ethnologue right now.
a) kok is a macrolanguage to cover two language codes with the same(or similar) name.
b) Konkani, the official language of Goa and of emigree populations in surrounding areas is "gom".
c) Konkani(or more specifically "Kokani") as used by Marathis refers to the collection of Marathi dialects spoken in the Konkan clostal region of Maharashtra.
I know Grierson may be old and may not be totally accurate. But each linguist has a different view of what constitutes a language and what makes a dialect of another. Lets give Grierson his due for compiling a single listing of all languages in India. Besides , you will not find any detailed study of knn dalects on the net in order to resolve any doubts.
I was pretty confused about the codes too but my understanding has changed over the years. The Wikmedia incubator first used kok based on the nomination. But the change to gom was made after I created theKonkani (macrolanguage) article:the admins query on my TP and my reply. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :) I agree with you that Ethnologue is strange about gom, but try not to be so disrespectful... One of us can email them (or SIL) to ask about this (maybe we can help them revise the world-famous book while they might help us about this), when we need to say "See this URL for more info" and we look bad if we're talking childishly. It's a good idea to be friendly, helping each other, respecting what they know, instead of disrespecting what they don't know. Knowledge will change when one learns more, and it's only natural that the contents keep changing.
The picture I posted is based on: The Konkani Subgrouptreeknn mapgom mapmar map So, knn is not a dialect of Marathi language after all. In old days, both gom and knn were considered as dialects of Marathi, but no more today (apparently since around 1990s). Calling knn "a dialect of Marathi" is as wrong as calling gom "just a dialect of Marathi". Not only Ethnologue, but ISO and LINGUIST think that way and I don't think we can deny that. If you're willing to agree, I have a few suggestions. If you can't agree with that, we need to talk more, but then you'll first need to cite something better than LINGUIST/ISO etc. to prove you're more correct than they. —Gyopi (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had the time to look at the recent sites but what I understand is this : Ethnologue's classification of Indian languages largely depends on Grierson's work. This is also reflected in its classification of Konkani into two different codes. Now, this is important: a SIL code need not necessarily represent a language as we understad it(we here meaning that every person has a subjective definition as a language). For instance Arabic is represented by multiple codes that represent various national dialects or standard registers(see Varieties of Arabic). knn here is not a single language in itself but a collective name for a familiy of dialects. The dialects of Marathi spoken in the Konkan are significantly different from the dialects spoken in the "desh" or the Deccan; but show a great degree of similarity with each other. Probably it is for this reason that Greierson classified it in a seperate tree. The ISO language codes are directly based on the SIL classification(which is known as the ethnologue). They did not undertake a seperate study. Linguist too takes on from ISO. So ultimately, my belief is that all these language recoders derive from Griersons work. Besides this is what SIL has to say about its own classification[3]:
There is no one definition of "language" that is agreed upon by all and appropriate for all purposes. As a result, there can be disagreement, even among speakers or linguistic experts, as to whether two varieties represent dialects of a single language or two distinct languages. For this part of ISO 639, judgments regarding when two varieties are considered to be the same or different languages are based on a number of factors, including linguistic similarity, intelligibility, a common literature, the views of speakers concerning the relationship between language and identity, and other factors. ...
So... do you think that Konkani can include both gom and knn? Or in your opinion, that is totally unacceptable? If so, it's ok too: we can work on that assumption; but we might then have to radically rewrite Konkani language. For example, currently it says “It has approximately 7.6 million speakers of its two individual languages, Konkani and Goan Konkani.” where Konkani = gom + knn is assumed. If you insist that, the number of Konkani speakers is half, or perhaps only one million or so, and the rest is Marathi speakers (because in your theory, knn is a dialect of Marathi). We'll also have to quote the "opposite opinion", like "ISO and SIL say so and so, which is inappropriate because of this and this reason." I can, however, quote lisindia.net to support your point of view, where they are suggesting that knn is only a bunch of dialects while gom is a different language. It's hard to beat ISO/Ethnologue etc. just by quoting this kind of smaller websites, but I admit that even ISO is sometimes wrong (for example, the letter of Malayalam digit 0 had been wrong in Unicode/ISO until it was fixed later). Do you have anything better you can cite? — Gyopi (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
gom and knn represent two different languages(or in one case a collection of dialects) which have the same name becuase traditionaly languages are named after the region. It is confusing, yes. The 7.6 million figure is inaccurate( I had put it when I first edited this article). The figure in the infobox is more accurate. Again let me clarify that knn being a dialect of Marthi is not my theory but based on Griersons' work. If you read the sample from rosettanet, it is amply evident that the speech of Knn is closer to Marathi than to Goan Konkani althoug it may show some features closer to Konkani. The listindia.et article seems to be based on this Wikipedia article itself. so lets keep it aside. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
What you're assuming is not based on Grierson's work. He said clearly that gom was also a dialect or mar (vol.7, p. 1, p. 164), assuming that gom, knn, and mar shared the same ancestor language. In linguistics, a language family means a group of languages or dialects that shares the common ancestor. Today, apparently, linguists tend to think gom belongs to a different language (sub)family, which means that proto-Konkani and proto-Marathi are different (i.e. proto-Konkani and proto-Marathi are sisters, and gom and mar are cousins). It's easy to say that knn and gom belong to the same language family, both daughters of proto-Konkani [4]. That's what linguists assume today. They think that gom and knn are sisters. Grierson, on the other hand, though that gom and knn (and mar) were sisters. Either way, linguists today and linguists in the past believe that gom and knn are sisters. While, your OR implies "gom is from proto-Konkani but knn is from proto-Marathi; they're not sister languages", the theory only you claim. I don't think you mean that, but what you're saying actually implies that.
Don't you think that perhaps historically knn and gom share the same ancestor even though knn is heavily influenced by mar and quite different from gom? Do you have any problem if you agree with ISO etc. which assumes that knn and gom are in the same language family? —Gyopi (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Konkani and Marathi both have a common ancestor: Maharashtri prakrit. They have divereged significantly over hundreds of years and have become different languages. The reason Grierson considered Goan Konkani also to be a dialect of Marathi was becuase the "national literature" of the Konkanis(meaning epics, releigious literature etc) was in Marathi. It was not based on linguistic grounds but on cultural grounds. Even today Konkani Hindus in Goa and neignbouring areas use Marathi as a liturgical language. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
For now, let's just say we can (and should) just write about both points of view. I'm starting from Konkani (macrolanguage). —Gyopi (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Really, the whole "macrolanguage" thing is in-house SIL jargon. No-one uses the term outside of ISO coding. We don't need an article on that, so I'm deleting. I won't pass judgement on whether knn is a dialect of Marathi or not; that should also be covered here. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Unite all Konkani language codes
gom refers to only Goan Konkani where as Knn refers to Konkani (Independent Language) and kok is for Konkani macrolanguage. There is further hair splitting dissection of gom articles into gom/dn for the official script, gom for roman and gom/kd for the Kannada script.
Due to the exodus of Konkani speaking families from Goa during the Inquisition and before, there exists a sizeable population of Konkani speaking communities outside Goa and this must be taken note of. Understandably, it will be a gargantuan task to expect writers to write in a standard dialect when one they might have problems writing in their own dialects. Konkani writers have had the added disadvantage of not having been taught Konkani in school; so all attempts are laudatory.
so far as the language codes are concerned, we must bring all articles concerning Konkani and Konkani speaking communities under one single code, or else we shall fail to bring Konkani out of the Wiki incubator.
Let me request one and all not to be too jingoistic about the script issue. Please remember that Hindi and Urdu are the same language divided by scripts. They can bear the brunt due to the sheer majority of their speakers; we can not.
We can continue quoting and deliberating or just start writing articles in Konkani to let wiki Konkani see the light of day. One single script will help us understand each other and make our writers, who now a days spend a bomb getting their works published in 3 different scripts, smile and our literature grow.
Now that we have an official script, could we please start writing and deliberate on different articles written in Konkani??
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rice is not mentioned in the first veda ie. Rigveda.It means it was not known to those people,the vedas might have been compileed over years.Later as the Vedic Sanskrit speaking tribe moved southward,they discovered Rice from the other people.other vedas have mentioned rice as Vrihi,which were written later.The word Vrihi is found in a corrupted form in Konkani which is Vari,a type of small rice.The word Tandul has prto-austroloid origin who were rice eaters.This word is a later inclusion in Sanskrit.
Same is the case with Narikel which is not mentioned in the Rigveda as it was never grown in the north-western part of India where the Vedas are said to have beeen written.This word too like Tandul was adopted into Sanskrit later.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Macrolanguage" is ISO jargon. It's not a linguistic term. Our article on the 'macrolanguage' was unencyclopedic trivia that didn't explain anything that shouldn't be here on this article. There might be something that should be rescued from the text below. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Both languages are referred to as Konkani by their respective speakers. However there is a major difference between the two:
Goan Konkani is politically recognised and accepted as an independent language. It is the official language of the Indian state of Goa[1] and is also one of the scheduled languages of India[2].
Konkani (individual language) on the other hand, has no official recognition. Many of its speakers regard it as a group of dialects of Marathi spoken in the Konkan coast of Maharashtra. Linguists had generally believed that both Goan Konkani and Konkani were dialects of Marathi until around 1990. George Abraham Grierson has referred to it as the Konkan standard of Marathi in order to differentiate it from Goan Konkani.[3] He also states that Goan Konkani is a Marathi dialect, having branched off from the common parent Prakrit.[4]
Linguists believe that Goan Konkani and Konkani belong to the same language family of the Southern-zone Indo-Aryan languages, spoken mainly in the Konkan region and adjoining areas of India, including Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa, and Kerala. However, this classification, while internationally accepted, is not necessarily conclusive even linguistically. The member languages, especially knn, are often socially or politically treated (or mistreated) as dialects of Marathi language (ISO639-3: mar). For example, Encarta defines “Konkani” as “a dialect of Marathi spoken in coastal Maharashtra in western India”.[5]
Both languages are named after the Konkan region. Of these, Konkani (individual language) is considered to be the set of dialects of Marathi spoken in the Konkan region. Goan Konkani, on the other hand, is the set of dialects that originated in Goa.
^Konkani Encarta World English Dictionary (North American Edition), 2009 Microsoft Corporation.
Konkani alphabets
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I notice a table called 'Konkani Alphabets' which lists out the alphabets in all the 5 scripts used to write Konkani. Is this really necessary??? Apart from the fact that the table of alphabets have no citation or reference, I have three points to make:
There is no unique script for Konkani, so 'Konkani alphabets' makes no sense.
This page is about a Language, not a script. There are respective pages for each of those 5 scripts which list the alphabets. That being said, all these alphabets listed on the table on this page do not have anything unique to the Konkani language which can justify the mention of those alphabets.
Adding information that is not really unique to the topic of this page ruins the academic brevity of content basically leading to digression.
Any thoughts would be sincerely appreciated. I plan on expanding this page, therefore I am also looking at cleaning up stuff that is not required.
Areed that it makes the page longer but most languages have an alphabet section. In Konkani's case it is simply that there are 5. Besides, Konkani does not have a unique script. Also there are phonetic variations between the native usage for the script and its usage in Konkani which in my opinion is the best reason to keep it. As far as citations are concerned the columns for Roman, Devanagari and Kannada scripts are picked from TSKKs books. I'll add a reference to them if necessary. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. However, isn't the listing of these alphabets redundant? There are individual pages for each of those scripts and those pages list out all alphabets. And I haven't seen most languages having an 'alphabet section' where all the alphabets are written out. Please look at Hindi, Gujarati language, Punjabi language or Bengali language. You won't find alphabets listed on those respective language pages. The reason is simple: there are pages for the scripts they use and those pages list out all the alphabets. For eg. Hindi uses the Devanagari script, so the page for Devanagari script lists out the alphabets. The Punjabi language is also written in multiple scripts, but it doesn't list out all the alphabets for Gurmukhi, Shahmukhi and Devanagari. There are individual pages for each of those scripts used for Punjabi which list out the alphabets. Also, there are phonetic variations in most usages of a script. Hindi and Marathi for example both use Devanagari, but Hindi doesn't use the ळ consonant whereas Marathi uses it. That doesn't mean the Hindi language page deserves a mention of all letters that is specific to Hindi only. Also, most European languages use a variant of the Latin script. But look at German language, Polish language or Czech language as examples. Neither of those pages list out alphabets. The reason is simple: The page is about a language, not a script. That being said, this is a page for Konkani language and I believe that mentioning alphabets here is simply redundant.
If you are saying that just because there is a seperate page for each script and so it does not need to be here, I would like to point out again that the usage is different in Konkani. For Gujarati, Punjabi and Bengali scripts there is only one language closeley assocated with each script. That isnt the same case here. Also there is no standard template for language pages. Just because another language article doesnt have something doesn't mean that we can't have it here. Here's another lingo article that has the alphabets:Korean language. We aren't talking about the scripts here, just their specific use in Konkani. Lets see what other voices have to say about it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk)
How can you say that the usage is different in Konkani? And different to what extent? Different to an extent that it needs a mention here on this page? In response to your point regarding 'there is only one language closely associated with the script', let me point out that the Gujarati script is also used to write the Kutchi language. Unless I am mistaken, I don't think TSKK is a government sanctioned governing body of the Konkani language that has de facto authority over setting rules and standardization over the writing system. Different people tend to use/omit various types of consonants and vowels when they use Devanagari for writing Konkani. I'm not very familiar with the Kannada script, but regarding Devanagari, I know for sure that many Konkani writers use the ॆ vowel, whereas it is not mentioned here in the alphabet list. Do we have a standardized set of alphabets for Konkani language yet? As far as I know, TSKK's book regarding writing rules for Konkani is simply a recommendation/suggestion, NOT an ordinance. Listing out the alphabets here gives the reader a WRONG impression that these list of alphabets are a standard for Konkani, which is why it is very wrong in my opinion to mention them under the title 'Konkani alphabets'. Besides, TSKK has come up with books regarding writing rules only for Roman and Devanagari script. Where did you get the list of alphabets for Kannada, Malayalam and Perso-Arabic from? And also, regarding the Korean language... I do think the mention of alphabets on the Korean page is also redundant as there is a separate page for their script (Hangul). Besides, Hangul is only used for writing Korean, so that is a perfect case of redundancy, as there are no phonetic differences in usage of the Hangul script.
Again Just becaue Kutchi doesn't have it doesnt mean Konkani cant have it. Probably the people who wrote the article never considered adding it. That cant be taken as a standard. Yes TSKK is not government sanctioned but it has done much more for Konkani (including research) than government appointed bodies. Personally, I have not come across any Konkani "research" books put forth by government so I would rather depend on TSKK. Can you point out government sources which differ? Then they will take precedence over TSKK. TSKK has published standardized orthographies, or more correctly recommendations for Roman and Kannada scripts. Its books on Konkani in Devanagiri script use the standard dialect so I don't think they would use a different orthography than the standardized one. I can look for more examples but you simply have to say that they are redundent conviniently forgetting that this isnt the same case.Please take a look at English language where the IPA is redundant, that too twice over. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that the absence of alphabets in a language page is not a standard. Similarly, adding alphabets to a Wiki page is not a standard either. TSKK is merely a research institute run by Jesuits. It may have done a world of research over the language, but the fact remains that IT IS NOT A RULING AUTHORITY THAT HAS DE FACTO SAY OVER KONKANI. Just because Government approved linguistic associations have not come up with a standardized set of alphabets, doesn't mean you make up for it by using an organization such as TSKK.. And that's precisely what I have been saying before. That there is no standardization YET for Konkani alphabets, which is why Government appointed linguistic bodies have not come up with any such standardized list. So there is no question of me pointing out sources that differ. Like I said before, you're giving the reader absolute wrong information that a standardized list exists for Konkani alphabets; which is SO NOT true. If you must keep those alphabets, it would be wrong to title it as 'Konkani Alphabets'. Rather 'TSKKs recommended alphabets usage in Konkani' would be more appropriate - for the simplest reason that TSKK's books are a guideline, not a standard. Also, I am aware about TSKK's books for Roman and Devanagari scripts. I am certainly not aware about a guideline on Kannada script from TSKK. That being said, I am definitely unaware of TSKK publishing a guideline for Perso-Arabic and Malayalam scripts. I would encourage you to add a reference. Please delete Perso-Arabic and Malayalam script alphabets if you are unable to find any reference; as that would constitute Original Research.
Devanagari has been used to write Konkani since in earliest history and now its the official script.Hindi nowadays is very popularly writen in Roman script too that doesnt mean it should be included in the wiki article about Hindi,
Persian script is used as well to write Hindi.So it ll be opt to include only Devaganari script table.
Nijgoykar (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Even though Devanagari is the official script, one cannot discount the fact that Kannada script is just as popular (if not more) as far as literature is concerned. We seem to be digressing from the original topic here...The question I am raising here is not about which script has a place and which doesn't. My argument is that none of the scripts' alphabets have a place here because there are respective pages for those scripts in place. Also, there is NO standardized set of alphabets for 'Konkani', therefore there is no justification for citing 'phonetic differences' as a reason for mentioning the alphabets in all those five scripts. As far as I know, TSKK is not a governing linguistic body that has de facto authority over the language. Their books on Roman and Devanagari script rules are merely a recommended guideline and are by no means an ordinance. And like I said before, I am not aware of TSKK publishing a list of 'Konkani alphabets' in Kannada, Malayalam and Perso-Arabic scripts.. so where is the source for the alphabets of those three scripts?
Chandrakor and a Chandrabindu should be used for transliteration of English or Portuguese words.(eg the word Tom should be transliterated as टॉम and not टोम.)
Vowels and consonants like ऋ,ॠ,ऌ,ॡ and ष,क्ष,ज्ञ should be used to write Sanskrit words.
Excellent work, Nijgoykar. Could you also please list out the vowels from that book? That way, we have a complete set of alphabets which are a standard for the Konkani language. I recommend removing TSKK's version and putting this one up. On a similar note, I know that Konkani is taught in schools in Karnataka... so I am sure they have a standard set of Kannada alphabets published by the government. Does anyone have any info on that?
Thanks for adding the vowels too, Nijgoykar. Based on what I am seeing here... these alphabets do not differ from the standard Devanagari alphabets for Marathi and Hindi. So my vote would be to not include these alphabets (while also deleting the existing long list of alphabets on the main article). I happened to run a check on the Kagunita (Kannada alphabets) mentioned for Konkani here and I couldn't find any difference between the standard one and the one listed on the Konkani article page. And again, the Malayalam, Perso-Arabic alphabets appear to be Original Research. A few more voices to decide this matter would be much appreciated.
Nijgoykar, I see that you've replaced the old table with your table. However, we haven't yet established consensus on this. I'm going to leave it status quo, but we do need to discuss the inclusion of the Varnamalha. Based on what I see, the varnamalha you have pasted is no different from the standard Devanagari alphabets, therefore it is redundant. Please reply here. Signed | Aoghac2z 16:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well yes it is same as standard devanagari.. same as Marathi... but its not the same as hindi... its ends with ksha,tra... its should be included as its has been used in Goa since ages unknown.. and its taught to kids at home... and its taught in schools officially since may be last 20 years or even more.And is officially accepted by Govt of Goa and Goa Konkani acedemy rum by Govt of Goa.The varnamalas presented b4.. included vowels which and some consonants which are never used when writing konknai at all..I have been studying in Konkani since std 1 till 12th.konkani is taught in schools in Roman script in goa nor Kannada.
Another thing... if according to you this official table should not be included then why should article about hindu include both nagari and persian script?or scripts like kayathi,maithili which are considered as its dialects.. I have even seen marathi written in telugu and kannada lipi in thanjavoor..the official alphabet must be included its a must
no matter which arrangemnt of vowels and consonants it follows.
There are always very minor differences between scripts shared by different languages. There are no major or enormous differences between the usage of Devanagari in Hindi, Marathi or Konkani - the difference is not major enough to list out all alphabets. Besides, this is not an argument in favor of bias towards Devanagari script just because it is the official script in Goa. Konkani is one such language that is written in multiple scripts. The use of Kannada script for Konkani is just as enormous (if not more) than Devanagari. So, we can't make an argument saying that only Devanagari script deserves an alphabetic mention because it is the official script. Konkani is not just spoken in Goa, but is also spoken in Karnataka. Regarding your argument about Hindi language, you cannot make a comparison. The popularity of Persian script for Hindi is nothing compared to that of Kannada script or Roman script for Konkani. Similarly, the use of Kannada script for Thanjavur Marathi is not an appropriate analogy, as you never have periodicals or books written in Thanjavur Marathi using Kannada script in the popular sense. On the other hand, Konkani in South Kanara is written primarily in Kannada script. Having said that, the table that you have removed is something that was awaiting consensus. Deepak D'souza hasn't had any comments since his last one, and it would have been appropriate to wait for his response before making any changes. I'm going to leave it status quo as the matter is still in debate. But please don't delete stuff which is already controversial and awaiting consensus. Signed | Aoghac2z 07:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
References
^Gomanta Bharati,yatta payali,Published by
GOA BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ALTO BETIM,page number:11
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The articles which have been newly created lack sources and references.The creator has used original research.None of the articles cite any references!Even I can add many things which I have discovered or realized but its not the way!
Noone is bothered about that !
moreover wikipedia is not a battleground for discussing the current issues about development of the language but its about conveying precise information to its readers and not confuse them!
So please guys do not add funny sources and mention the name of the books or journals.. an no blogs or any community portal,because all Konkani communities always look down others and have been ever glorifying themselves... its in our blood so please do not do that! No community websites serving as references at all!
Nijgoykar (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Path ahead
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Mike, the issue is a very emotional one. Its great for you to take a lead in this. Being non-Konkani seems to be a major qualification in your case (sad but true). Paraphrasing Bernard Shaw in "My Fair Lady", Konkani communities are divided by their common mother tongue.
To avoid edit warring and bad blood, I suggest we move step by step slowly over a period of time. First of all, let User:Imperium Celeste be asked to improve his references. Then, let the Karnataka Konkani and Canara Konkani articles be merged. We could then take things forward from there after that.
It is apparent that three sets of Konkani dialects of the macrolanguage are predominant - gom, knn & mar. The varying degrees of official acceptance can result in either an inclusionist view or deletionist view - therein lies the cause for edit wars. It would be good to develop the articles/find refs/reduce OR first.
Please archive this page, except for the latest talk. As is customary for Wikipedia, all people are requested to be civil, to assume good faith, not make broad sweeping statements, and aim for consensus.
I appeal to Konkani editors to please cooperate in the spirit of the Konkani macrolanguage - a culturally rich and diverse language spoken by people of different ethnicities, religions and written in many scripts. The challenge for this community of Konkani Wikipedians of all dialects is to resolve this issue without rancour and with consensus within Wikipedia guidelines.
AshLin, your discretion is laudatory :). Having overcome my disappointment that a certain user did not adhere to the Please do not bite the newcomers guidelines and Consensus and carried on a covert edit war, I am glad that this discussion is taking a civil turn. The ISO 639 codes, with regards to the Konkani language and dialects, are vague. Most users covering Konkani, Goan, Canarese as well as Malabarese dialects, are known to use the code gom. Some users use the knn code on the logic that it stands for Konkani (independent language). Hence we have a condition where articles are attributed code gom and the language Babelbox is attributed code knn.
I stand by AshLin's appeal and in furtherance thereof request all contributors to and editors of articles related to the Konkani language, culture and people to respect the diversity of the language and not endeavour to paint the articles in one colour.
Original research seems to be the phrase of the season. The article states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." Damning an article or a contribution as Original Research without query and deliberation is an uncivil act and unbecoming of oneself.
Users are requested to peruse the new articles and make use of the {{citation needed}} tag at places where they feel a reference is needed. It must be stressed that the new articles do, and should, portray the history, culture and linguistic nuances of Konkani speaking communities regardless, of their religio-cultural background. ImperiumCaelestis 05:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Onus is on you
Imperium, please understand WP:OR accurately, as I would be amongst those who would delete such material considered as OR. Also, the onus of finding accurate references is on you. As of now, I consider the article you created as poorly referenced. What we have requested here is time for you to verify what you wrote. If you cant find references, out it goes. I'll do it myself as a speaker of amchigale, rather than have gom speakers do it; so that the none can be accused of bipartisanship. You have a month's leeway from my side. I request Mike to partner me in this issue. I will presently restrict myself to the two articles being considered for merger. Any changes for amendments to this Konkani language article will be proposed here for consensus. I hope this is okay with all concerned. AshLin (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
your views, terse though they are, are received in good faith. I am a Bhānap āmchigelo; nevertheless I am in deliberation with wiki administrators to restrain them from deleting the images of a Nawayathi Konkani periodical and a book of catechism in Konkani published by the diocese of Karwar. I have created and contributed to 4 articles Canara Konkani, Konkani phonology, Konkani Language Agitation and Konkani script, and am in active consultation with Shri. Guru Baliga of the Konkani Language and Cultural Foundation, Mangalore for contributions which might throw more light on the articles. The articulation of your intentions goes against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:CONSENSUS and is out of line with Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:WIP
Coming to your point, I have references for all my contributions. I appeal to seasoned users like yourself to review the articles and leave your views on the talk page or better still, leave a {{citation needed}} beside statements whose veracity is likely to be questioned, rather than go on an editing spree a la militaire. I hope you share my predicament in having an article with a reference list twice as long as the article itself.
It can not be stressed enough that this is not an us-against-them slugfest. We are all in the endeavour to present information regarding the Konkani language, its dialects, its communities and it best be done consensually. Godspeed!!ImperiumCaelestis 14:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Your slugfest point well-taken but you are not correct on all points. I am continuing this thread on the talk page of Canara Konkani. AshLin (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed :) I'll be glad to join you there. ImperiumCaelestis 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion moved to the Talk Page of Canara Konkani.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This discussion has been moved to the talk page of the article in question. Please contribute here @ Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_KonkaniSigned | Aoghac2z | 19:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
