Talk:Lipi (script)

Jains?

@Tarchon: In the edit summary of this, you wrote, "that's not what the Jains say". Do you have a Jain scholars or particular ancient/medieval texts in mind? Please clarify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's in the Agamas, I think. The Jains attribute the introduction of writing to Rishabhanatha. There's a paragraph on it in Brahmi script, for which the Jains have their own independent etiological myth.Tarchon (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Identify that Agama please that discusses Brahmi script and supports your alleged, "that's not what the Jains say". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find this in almost anything about Jain legend. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rishabhanatha I just assume it's in the agamas. Maybe it is. maybe it ain't, but the story about Bambhi certainly is and they're really the source for most Jain legend, so that's probably it. http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/tirthankar/first-tir.htm https://books.google.com/books?id=ISFBJarYX7YC&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=Rishabhanatha+invention+of+writing&source=bl&ots=1yXIxFUtxz&sig=O9K3m9aQALo11FlvbSiG1BIMFNU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-4K215-fPAhUH3mMKHfjHDqIQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=Rishabhanatha%20invention%20of%20writing&f=false

I mean, this is like Jainism 101. It's like asking me how I know Christians believe Jesus was a carpenter.

@Tarchon: There is interpolation concerns indeed for Unadisutras, but Muller is not saying Lipi part is interpolated, is he? If yes, where? I ask because I want us to avoid WP:OR of the WP:Synthesis variety. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no way of telling for sure when something is interpolated, but obviously once you have multiple demonstrated interpolations, you have to take any chronology built off of it with a grain of salt, particularly when it's discussing a term that appears anachronistic on the face of it. If there was evidence of the use of "lipi" in early Vedic contexts, that would be one thing, but there's a reason why most commentators on the origins of writing in India cite Panini and the Pali canon as the earliest evidence of the term. I doubt if it's because they haven't read this note in the Corpus or don't have access to some dictionary of Sanskrit, it's because the date of the Unadi reference is subject to significant question. If you want to SYNTHESIZE Hultzsch with one cherry picked observation out of Müller about the date of the Unadisutras, I think I am completely justified in adding in the next five pages of the same source where he discusses the interpolations in it. My preference is to chop it all out and wholly rely on Hultzsch instead of having to explain why a reference in the Unadisutras isn't necessarily reliable for chronology, because if we do that, then we have to start explaining to the layman things like interpolations and chronology, but if you want to start arguing against Hultzsch's perfectly logical, thoroughly referenced, and widely accepted observation, the consensus view will get a fair chance to fight back.Tarchon (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: Hultzsch is a 1925 source. Too old to be WP:HISTRS. Please do not ignore 90 years of scholarship that followed, nor assume that you are only one in the world who understands or knows epigraphy and history of Asian scripts. Our goal here to summarize the sources, not do OR. I am afraid you are lecturing and doing OR here, which is not what wikipedia is supposed to be. More specifically, since you can't identify where Max Muller states the "Lipi part is interpolated", but you imply that conclusion that neither Max Muller nor any other scholar makes, you may have inadvertently done OR here, which I will remove. Let us stick to wikipedia content guidelines. Quit lecturing. Just identify the page numbers from the reliable sources that are preferably recent, and then let us do our best to summarize those sources. If you have additional sources, I am willing to consider them and work with you to summarize them collaboratively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you want me to delete everything you've added that uses a source before 1925? You're the one who cited Max Müller. I assume since you're an expert in Indology, you know when Müller was working? Tarchon (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: The Jain claim of Rishabhanatha inventing writing is not equivalent to he inventing the Brahmi script or particular Lipi(s). I asked for the specifics for the Jain Agama(s) you mentioned above. I will try to locate and read that Agama and secondary scholarship on it, if you can identify it, and may be we can then summarize something in this article from it. If you don't have the time to do so, don't worry. I am fine with Muller and Hultzsch being mentioned in this article, along with all the other sources, but I am not fine with "chop it all out and wholly rely on Hultzsch" as you suggest above because Hultzsch is a 1925 source. We shouldn't ignore the rest of scholarship, nor disregard the scholarly reviews in the recent years, nor do OR in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Make up your mind. The only thing relevant to this article is whether the Jains think Rishabhanatha introduced writing. If you want to know about Brahmi, why don't you clink on the link to the Brahmi script article that I already gave and read it. No, wait, since you can't seem to work that out, I'll just copy it.

Several divergent accounts of the origin of the name "Brahmi" appear in history and legend. The Jain Agamas mention the Brahmi script (bambhī in the original Prakrit) in the 4th and 5th Angas, leading a list of 18 scripts, though it is missing from versions of the 18 script list in later commentaries. Jain legend recounts that the script was taught by their founder Rishabhanatha to his daughter Brahmi, whence the name comes. A Chinese Buddhist account of the 6th century CE attributes its creation to the god Brahma.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarchon (talk • contribs)

References

@Tarchon: This is an article on Lipi, or writing scripts. Your comment, "The only thing relevant to this article is whether the Jains think Rishabhanatha introduced writing", seems puzzling and misplaced. Thanks for the source though. We have already mentioned the 18 Lipi list in the Jaina texts, but I will see if there something more we can add to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft rewording

@Tarchon: Your edit left "The term is found in post-Vedic...", but it is unclear "which term". I do not want to create a new article on Lekha, as it is related to Lipi. This will avoid WP:CFORK issues. How about the following:

Terminology

Lipi means "script, writing, alphabet" both in Sanskrit and Pali. A Lipika or Lipikara means scribe or one who writes, while Lipijnana and Lekhā means the "science or art of writing". Related terms such as Lekhā (लेखा, related to rekhā or line) and Likh (लिख) are found in Vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts of Hinduism, as well as in regional languages such as the Pali texts of Buddhism.

References

I am meditating on whether to quote or summarize recent scholarly secondary sources on the Vedic Aranyakas text as well, to the above, which mention writing and writers (as "Lekhakas", "Likhita", etc). The root Lip- appears in the early Upanishads too, some of which were written before 700 BCE, which we should mention citing WP:RS. Of course, if you persuade me, we can opt to create a separate article on Lekha (writing). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This gets to the biggest problem with this article. This is English wikipedia. If you want to create an article on writing in India, it should be called writing in India. Naming it after one particular term in Sanskrit is not the way wikipedia is supposed to be organized, cf. WP:WINAD. If you want an article on the word lipi, it should be in wiktionary. The reason you have this whole problem with lekha etc., along with the organizational issues, is that you're trying write two different articles that belong on entirely separate wikimedia at the same time. If this is writing in India it simply cannot be called lipi. India is a big country, with 100s of languages. Sanskrit is not some default lingua franca that can or should be used to describe anything Indian, particularly when we already have a perfectly good expression for what you're talking about in the language of this wikipedia (i.e. English). Tarchon (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

E.g. wikt:लिपि Tarchon (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out the existence of Early Indian epigraphy which deals primarily with early inscriptions in India.Tarchon (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And Brahmic scripts. I couldn't find any other examples of "writing in [geographic region]", and my first instinct is to say that this really should be pared down to a new Sanskrit wikt:लिपि lemma in wiktionary since between Brahmic scripts, Brahmi script, Early Indian epigraphy, Kharosthi, and Indus script, the origins of writing in India are pretty well covered. Tarchon (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: I am delighted that you realize this is English wikipedia. Lipi is the notable term found in English language texts related to writing scripts – yes, plural – in ancient and medieval Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. We have numerous articles, such as Dharma, Karma, Nirvana etc in wikipedia, not just wiktionary, for similar reason. If you want to create wikitionary article(s) as well for Lipi etc, go ahead. We can add wiki commons to the external links section. I am increasingly inclined to create Lekha article as well, since the term includes more than writing – sketching/painting etc – in their traditions, and there are multiple WP:RS on it. Even then, writing and writing scripts, Lipi and Lekha, are so closely related that a mention of both terms is appropriate, just as in Writing system and Writing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you even understand what I'm saying? In English we have this word "writing". It adds nothing to the article to take a parochial term from another langauge and use that in place of the English word "writing" other than to confuse readers. Tarchon (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: Indeed. Do you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

credulous acceptance of manuscripts

This is another big problem with this article, statements like "These texts list the Lipi in existence in ancient India, before the birth of Buddha, and the list contains sixty four scripts.[1]" You can't just take a source like the Lalitavistara Sutra and say that all these scripts it lists are necessarily real and that its chronology of the Buddha's life is historic. If you read the very same reference you gave for this statement, Salomon quite obviously does not accept that these are all real scripts. There is a tendency here to take received manuscripts as being perfectly preserved and entirely factual in the original. The Lalitavistara changed substantially even in the preserved MSS. No one knows what the original Said, and there's no way to know if it was really historic. You can't simply take it to mean that these are scripts that existed "before the birth of Buddha". It does tell you that someone in 1st millennium CE India BELIEVED such and such, but there's a reason why you're not supposed to interpret primary sources on your own. You use Salomon's authority to support your statement that "These texts list the Lipi in existence in ancient India, before the birth of Buddha" when in fact Salomon says no such thing. p. 9 ibid. "...which also must give rise to suspicions as to the historicity of the list as a whole." See WP:Cherrypicking. Tarchon (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: No WP:OR or personal interpretations in wikipedia. You are welcome to summarize any RS on the credibility issue in this article, but with care and NPOV as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That's got NOTHING to do with NPOV. It's a bogus citation when you claim the reference says something that it doesn't say. Tarchon (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: Careful, don't cast aspersions per WP:NPA. The entire list is clearly on page 8 footnote 6 in the Salomon source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk)

Please read the explanation of cherrypicking again. "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Tarchon (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tarchon: I just wrote, "You are welcome to summarize any RS on the credibility issue...". Let us work together, collaborate constructively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is Lipi a capitalized word, or lowercase? Yoninah (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I have seen both, but lowercase is common. It is a matter of WP:MOS, and if you suggest I will change all Lipi to lipi, with or without italics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes, I think it should be lowercase, and since it's a foreign word, italic. Yoninah (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of "Kharosthi"

This word is spelled in three different ways in the article, without explanation: Kharosthi, Kharosti, Kharoshthi. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)