Talk:Paishachi

All the academic literature considers Paisaci as a indo-aryan language, and typically refer to it as one of the Prakrits. The contents of the current article seems to be politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.192.1 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 August 2006

(Four years later) Thanks for noticing the change and fixing it. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Page title

The page move has been recently reverted. What should the "correct" title be? I vote for "Paisachi" [1]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please follow WP:RM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn at nominator's request. Number 57 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Paisaci → Paisachi – It appears that the WP:COMMONNAME spelling is "Paisachi" Google books, especially Romesh Chander Dutt, Isabelle Carke-Deces, W. O. Kaufmann etc. The spelling is also closer to how the way the word is pronounced. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC) - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (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.

Title

Shouldn't this be titled either "Paiśācī" or "Paishachi"? "Paisaci" doesn't correctly reflect the pronunciation. utcursch | talk 15:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Even more confusing in light of the requested move section above. Shreevatsa (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault for having dropped the ball. (I recall that there was a flare-up on WP:INB and I opened this RfM just to calm things down, without thinking things through.)

The "Wikipedia-standard" transliteration is "Paishachi." However, the "primary transliteration" (at least 75% of the reliable sources) appears to be "Paisachi." So, according to WP:NCIN, we are supposed to use the latter, i.e., my RfM was asking for the right name after all. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress:, now that you seem to be back, can you offer your view on this? See "paisachi" vs "paishachi". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The latter are all older sources, often repeated, and we should heed the standard transliteration especially given the rarity of this term. This isn't like Taoism, where we're talking a topic everyone has heard of; this is very specialised topics. Either Paiśācī or Paishachi follows the standards of transliteration and has modern scholarly hits.

It's also the language of the pishachas. The language of the piśācas or pishachas is Paiśācī or Paishachi. Why would we incorrectly romanise forms for the latter?

Also I'm only kind of passively back (copyediting), but I wanted to weigh in because I hate inappropriate spellings, especially on topics like this one. Paisachi is just wrong by our (Wiki) standards. I'd be happier with Paiśācī but Paishachi is the "de-IAST the words" form. You can't just randomly mash up things all hoi polloi, it's unprofessional. Ogress 19:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Pisachi is obviously the Shina/Dardic languages - which grierson too calle the Pisaca group

Pisachi is obviously the Shina/Dardic languages - which grierson too calle the Pisaca group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.151.23 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2017

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by page mover) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Paisaci → Paishachi – The new suggested title is as per WP:NCIN, simplified transliteration of the name. The current title has the look of a formal transliteration, but without accents. So, it is confusing and, for most readers, it looks wrong. See some of the discussion above. "Paisachi" would be an alternative. It was current in the older literature, but its use has been decreasing [2]. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per nom.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:21, 25 September 2017 (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.

Relationship to Pali

I cut the following:

There is no known complete work in this language, however certain scholars specializing in Indology like Sten Konow Felix Lacôte[3] & Alfred Master[4] have explained that Paiśācī was the ancient name for Pāli, the language of the Pāli Canon of Theravada Buddhism.

There is the 13th Century reference to Paishachi being the language of the Stheraviravadas, which seems to be the origin of the claim that Paishachi is sometimes another name for Pali, but Sten Konow's article concludes that Paishachi was likely an Indo-Aryan language spoken by Dravidian people living near Ceylon. Master doesn't claim that Paishachi is Pali either- he simply notes cases where Paishachi is similar to the phonology and other features of Pali more so than to Sanskrit or other Prakrits, but also notes numerous differences between the two languages. Pali only occurs once in the index to Lacote's book and it's in reference to an inscription- there's an extended discussion of the origin of Paishachi, but I don't find him claiming that it's the same as Pali (though my French isn't great and the online copy is hard to search through). --Spasemunki (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)