Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Paya-Tamreshwari

@Aditya Kabir: why is the Paya-Tamreshwari brick inscription significant in this article (last paragraph in the "history" section)? Chaipau (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You have read more than I did on the subject. Would you attempt to write a history part for it? Or just try to reduce it? Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Isntead of trying to chip away one brick at a time, you could try "adding" some stuff to it.

Not just the Paya-Tamreshwari inscription, there are other inscriptions that needs to be mentioned at various levels. I am sure you are aware if that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it is a brick (pun intended) that can be used for building. This is a small brick, in real life, and it has a short text. I was wondering if you have a reference pointing to its relevance in the development of the script. If you do not have it, I think it is just a brick adding to the clutter at this building site that caused this worker to trip. Chaipau (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Printing

@Aditya Kabir: I am restoring the "printing" subsection of the history section. Halhed's printing (and Wilkin's types) are a historical form of the Bengali-Assamese script and therefore they are not WP:IRRELEVANT. In fact they are the precursor of the Bengali alphabet that was standardized by Vidyasagar. Interestingly, it also has the Assamese 'ro', and the type creation also had an impact on the use of the type in Assam for Assamese. It is duly and extensively referenced. Please do not revert without a discussion here. Chaipau (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted it. I also think this is irrelevant in this article as it mainly talks about Bengali, not Bengali-Assamese. Please reach a consensus before adding it again. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The type is a historical development. The Bengali-Assamese script is the script that is used for both Bengali as well as Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, don't edit war, you have been reverted by Aditya Kabir earlier and now by me. You need to reach a consensus first before adding it again. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau, Za-ari-masen, and Aditya Kabir: I think we are mixing up terms and definitions here. On Wikipedia we use the term "script" for an independent writing system, like Latin, Greek, Brahmi etc. The term "alphabet" is used for minor orthographic varieties of that script, like the English alphabet, the Vietnamese alphabet (which adds tons of diacritics), the Icelandic alphabet (which adds a few letters). If you go to these pages you will see that they describe the letters used for that variant of the script, including the pronunciations used for the letters (a Dutch G and an English G are quite different) and usually a short history of the spelling. So, we should not be acting like Assamese and Bengali are two child scripts of Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari, they are simply orthographic variants of the larger script, in fact the article mentions that they were standardized together in the 19th century.

So, knowing that "Bengali script" is an alternative term for the Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari script (even Unicode used to call it Bengali script for Assamese), the material that describes the history of the "Bengali script" should belong on this page and not the page for the orthographic variety used for Bengali, the Bengali alphabet. Only material directly relating to the ortographic varieties (think of spelling reforms etc.) of Bengali and Assamese should go there, the rest of the history should be here. Glennznl (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I could not have said it better than Glennznl. Glennznl is not stating a point of view but a Wikipedia convention. As seen from the history, the language specific article moved from "Bengali script" to "Bengali alphabet" here: [1] on the basis of WP:NCWS. The script in this case is defined as A general segmental writing system independent of any particular language, as opposed to the alphabets based on it (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(writing_systems)#Scripts) whereas the alphabets are defined as 'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters. (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(writing_systems)#Alphabets). I am listing the conventions here because this is not a content dispute up for consensus making but an issue that involves Wikipedia conventions. Chaipau (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep.

But the bigger problem is inadequate academic research and/or publications on the script. Currently I am studying the stuff, and hoping to find things that we can use. And believe you me, this whole Bengali-Assamese-Tirhuta-Maithili script thing is a complete mess from an academic perspective. No two author can agree on anything, and all of them rely on personal speculations mixed with acute subjective judgements. I am familiar with disputes about history, and most are about verifiable facts (example: we found a dagger dated to 10th century from Norway with Arabic inscriptions) and correlation between those facts (example: it means there was a releation between the Viking world and the Islamic world). And often a rather large number of scholars agree to both the fact and the correlations.

This paradigm of wild guesses and undecided conjectures is something of a surprise to me (don't get me wrong, I am not talking about linguistics, just the part where the history of relevant scripts are discussed). I really hope to see more linguistically knowledgeable colleagues to find something useful enough to be used in an encyclopedia. Obviously I was dissapointed, more so because of strong a strong denial that this actually is a mess created by the sloppy work done by academics. It is not an encyclopedists job to do the academics' work for them.

By the way I request all of you here not to ping me (or another editor) every time you post something. I have this page on my watchlist and pings are not address lines. A ping is just a tool to draw attention. My attention is already drawn, though I may not always reply.

I would also request eveyone not to treat other editors as hicks, because they may not be so, and in that case you are being highly incivil. These perfectly useless posts about the difference between scripts and alphabets may get someone a boost in self-esteem, but it also doesn't do anything for the article.

Well, off to get a Y cup of tea. Anyone interested to join? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think posts clarifying confused terminology are more useful and contribute more to the article than random ramblings leading to tea. Glennznl (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keywords: "confused" and "ramblings". I love your incivilities. I also love your way of helping the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Glennzl, you are absolutely right in your description about script and alphabet. The problem here is that "Bengali script" is also used as a synonym for "Bengali alphabet" which is why Bengali script is a disambiguation page and not a redirect to this article. If we include everything we find on "Bengali script" in this article, it's possible that this article would turn into a WP:CONTENTFORK of Bengali alphabet (it already is to some extent). Again, the root cause of all these problems is the incorrect title we have for this article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I am very glad that the issue is now resolved.

@Za-ari-masen: "Bengali script" is in general a synonym of "Bengali-Assamese script", not "Bengali alphabet". The relationship is "Bengali-Assamese script"→"Bengali alphabet". If you are talking about the script in the context of the Bengali language, then "Bengali script" could be synonymous with "Bengali alphabet". But in the context of any other language, be it Assamese, Sylheti, Manipuri, Bishnupriya-Manipuri "Bengali script" is synonymous with "Bengali-Assamese script" not with "Bengali alphabet". Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "Printing" section we are discussing here actually talks in the context of Bengali language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari, my friend, you are absolutely right in someway, with a few simple corrections. One is that Bengali-Assamese is a script, aka the way a set of alphabet is written, and that is a wider thing than alphabets, the set of letters that is written using the script, and are national or sub-national entities, like Tirhuta, Bengali, Meitei, Assamese and so on. At least three quite prominent alphabet systems (Bengali, Assamese and Tiruhat) use Bengali-Assamese script. The alphabets are not the same (some has more and some has less), but the script is the same. So, yes, it is fine to describe printing in Bengali alphabet and language here, because the typefaces were made using the script.

My problem is that the same impact of printing was also felt in the other big alphabet/language that uses the script. We need the Assamese story, otherwise this is very skewed. I think I am going use additive technics here, instead of achieving neautrality by removal I would rather add information on the Assamese side of the story. That's in the process. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bengali alphabet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assamese alphabet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)