Talk:Sylheti language/Archive 1

Userbox

The following can be added to userboxes to indicate the user speaks Sylheti:

{{User language|
|language-code=syl
|language-name=Sylheti language
|level=N
|description=This user is a '''[[:Category:User syl-N|native]]'''
speaker of '''[[Sylheti language|Sylheti]]'''.
}}

AA, 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
___

There is a slight error with the category in the code above. Here's a slight fix:

{{User language|
|language-code=syl
|language-name=Sylheti language
|level=N
|description=This user is a '''[[Category:User syl-N|native]]'''
speaker of '''[[Sylheti language|Sylheti]]'''.
}}

Jagged 85 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "native" with wikified link is not shown. The colon is necessary to show the full description.

AA, 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Uniqueness

The examples in the table are arbitrary. Most of the people of Bangladesh call a shoe by "জুতা" (Juta), only in standard written Bangla, it is sometimes (mostly by authors from West Bengal) as "Juto". Same goes for "Kala" - there is nothing unique in this, and it's used by most Bangladeshis from other regions as well.

The whole section, therefore, needs references from reliable sources. --Ragib 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference from STAR added (who have done extensive research in the Sylheti language). Sylheti is most definitely a language, having both a distinct oral and written differentiator from other languages. The fact that the written script has waned off since the independence of Bangladesh does not make it any less of a language. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Could you reword the section title and the table too, or provide other examples? The table, as I commented above, doesn't look convincing enough to support the claims. Such vocabulary differences are available in every dialect, and perhaps you could elaborate along the line of word origins, opinion from linguists etc. Thanks a lot. --Ragib 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Have this on my WP todo list - which seems to be growing daily! Agree that the article needs expanding and hope other editors can assist also and structure it along the lines of existing language articles such as Bengali or Arabic etc.
→ AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Sylheti Nagari script examples (images) should be interesting. If you have pictures of documents written using the script, please add it to the page. Thanks. --Ragib 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes for incorporating into article

• Exact origins unknown and earliest surviving manuscriptss date from either 1549 or 1774.

• Traditional story of the origin of the alphabet is around beginning of 14th century by Hazrat Shah Jalal.

• In late 17th century, Persian became official language of Delhi Sultanate and Perso-Arabic script was used for official documentation. Sylheti language and alphabet continued to be used by ordinary people.

• In 1860s, Moulvi Abdul Karim of Sylhet, spent several years in Europe where he learnt the printing trade. Returned to Sylhet in 1870s and setup first printing press in Sylhet Town (Islamia Press) using woodblock type for the alphabet. Other presses setup in Sunamgonj, Shillong and Calcutta. These presses dwindled out of use following independence of Bangladesh. Since then Nagri used mainly by academics and linguists.

• The alphabet is written in horizontal lines from left to right, but Sylheti books are paginated from right to left. This means that the front cover of a Sylhettan book is where the back cover of an English book would be.

• This is a syllabic alphabet in which consonants all have an inherent vowel. Other vowels are indicated with diacritics or separate letters. The inherent vowel can be muted with a special diacritic called a hasanta.

• Vowels can be written as independent letters, or by using a variety of diacritical marks which are written above, below, before or after the consonant they belong to.
• When consonants occur together in clusters, special conjunct letters are used. The letters for the consonants other than the final one in the group are reduced. The inherent vowel only applies to the final consonant.

Syloti Nagri alphabet
→ AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I have some questions:

• How common was the usage of Nagri script compared with Bengali script? (any numbers?)

Not sure - will try to find out.

• Any linguistic study from peer reviewed journals on this? (suggest looking via JSTOR and other publications). The linguist community should be quite interested in such a topic, and there might be some publications from linguists if you dig deep enough :). If you can't access JSTOR, you can ask me to look up the journal/publication by giving the article title/author.

I did come across something on JSTOR but I didn't have access. Thanks for the offer. I'll let you know the article details.

• Any major publication in the script? (Newspaper, books etc.)

Many books[1]. I'm kicking myself now as I had a "puthi" in Nagri which got destroyed recently. Some of the photos on the STAR website were taken from my copy of "Mohobbot Nama".

• • I can find name of all discovered puthis but i can't give you any web link. If any one can contact "Sylot Academy" they found full list.user:classicbanna 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you get free-licensed screenshots of books or other publications to show an example of Nagri script?

I'm pretty sure this will be possible. Will make attempts to do so.

• What led to the decline of the Nagri script?

I believe it was due to (a) destruction of the printing presses during the liberation war and (b) independence of Bangladesh where Bengali became the national language. At one time Sylheti nagri reached as far as Barisal.

Thanks. --Ragib 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sylheti Nagari digitisation

Hi all. I'm currently working with the British Library, and today came across a program they funded in 2006 to digitise ~100 Sylheti Nagari texts. They're all now online ([2], [3]) and it struck me this might be an interesting resource for this article - I've left a note on Talk:Sylheti Nagari as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

What exactly is disputed regarding the article's neutrality? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange Translations

(I apologise, I'm unable to use the Wikipedia code effectively, but I still saw an issue in this article) Why is 'Narae Takbeer - Allahu Akbor!' translated into 'hip hip - Horaay'? It seems a little strange to me and other sylhetis upon reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.109.105 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned commend moved from article

(Reference is unreliable and not academic. See this source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lRRYBHQvXdsC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=bengali+language+in+south+assam&source=bl&ots=iLC4J4Nxje&sig=Hn9Rp-JVA63CIm5izj2NnxuXcJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O10qVb_EF8SY7gbiwYH4Aw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bengali%20language%20in%20south%20assam&f=false. For moderators.

Note:

The Sylheti text in this article may be unreadable by some devices due to an issue regarding the Unicode source. As a result, the Sylheti script may appear as boxes in place of letters. The issue is being addressed; please check back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhin0ir (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

Re: 'moderate mutual intelligibility between Sylheti and Standard Bengali'

What is 'moderate'? Are there actual studies or are these claims simply anecdotal? Citations? What is the intention of making such a claim?

(I've been learning Sylheti and cannot in any way claim to also know/understand Bangla, nor the Sanskritic Standard Bengali. Sylheti speakers who have grown up in the UK, with little exposure to Bangla, cannot magically understand Bangla. These two languages, Sylheti with a very particular sound system, are hardly 'mutually intelligible' when spoken and a speaker of one, unless having had enough exposure to the other to learn it to a certain degree, cannot simply understand the other.)

Tuahtme (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations were given. "Sylheti shares 70% to 80% of its lexicon with Standard Bengali, despite pronunciation differences, which is a common situation between many related languages.[4][8]"UserNumber (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cachar and Hailakandi.

Besides its native region it is also spoken in Cachar and Hailakandi districts of Assam. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any links to a source that covers it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

] Sudhāṃśu Śekhara Tuṅga (1995). Bengali and Other Related Dialects of South Assam. pp.44. Retrieved on 2 September 2020. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

] "The Cachar version in p.234 may be taken as illustrating the typical Eastern Sylhet dialect also." George Grierson. Language Survey of India – Vol. V Pt 1. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal interpretation and source misrepresentation

The last line in the lead says However, since most Sylhetis are at least bilingual to some degree, as standard Bengali is taught at all levels of education in Bangladesh, common speakers of both Sylheti and Bengali say there is no substantial difference.. The causal relation between being a bilingual and their opinion on the difference between Sylheti and Bengali is not explicitly mentioned in the source, this appears to be a personal interpretation of the editor who added this line. There were also many source misrepresentations, especially in the edits by Tuahtme, who keep mentioning that linguists have "determined" Sylheti as a language and not a dialect while according to the sources, the linguistic classification or position is still "ambiguous" and "heavily debated". The misrepresentations have been fixed but it is recommended that Tuahtme provide full quotation if the source is offline when they edit. Further, misrepresentation of sources might require some administrative action. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree to what has been stated. Can we have a consensus here that the current version regarding the classification stays as it stands now? This edit warring seems to be never ending. Abu Ayyub (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen:, Tuahtme seems to be very biased and POV in his editing that Sylheti is a language, although there is also strong evidence on the other side that it is a dialect. Wikipedia should be unbiased and show both sides of the argument. Besides, the vast majority of Sylheti speakers identify as Bengali speakers anyway. UserNumber (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have started to take a look and Tuahtme does seem to be pushing his personal POV, quite zealously I would say. I have just checked the lead and Classification section and found plenty of source misrepresentations, more would be revealed if I check further. If he continues to edit war with the same misrepresentation of sources, we will have no other option but to report him. I'm also removing the line on the causal relation between bilingualism and opinion on differences discussed in this section as it also appears to be a source misrepresentation added by the same user. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Universal Declaration

This section is HIGHLY biased. It is comparing Bengali to Sylheti without stating that the Bengali used in the sentence is highly Sanskritised and that the Sylheti used is highly Persianised (meaning a Sylheti Hindu would probably understand the Bengali better). I think this section should be removed, especially as it is biased (unnatural use of Bengali and Sylheti) and cites no sources. UserNumber (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And the words used in the Sylheti sentence are also included in Bengali vocabulary. So it's not even a comparison as only alternative words choice has been used to show a difference. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Do I have permission to remove this misleading section? UserNumber (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

UserNumber, yes, please go ahead. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

@Abu Ayyub: @UserNumber: Grierson has made some very pointed assertions on facts. Furthermore, Jaintiapur-upazila, was itself named after the Jaintia kingdom; and Silchar is a town/city that emerged after the annexation of the Dimasa kingdom. Silchar has nothing to do with the naming of Sylheti. Chaipau (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that information sounds interesting, I had no idea. Abu Ayyub (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau:, what you have said is correct except your last sentence. Silchar has got something to do with the spelling of Sylheti. References have been provided mentioning that Silhet/Silhat and Silchar were two towns that are very close to each other. Due to the fact both of them started with "Sil", the British made the former town's spelling into "Syl" for less confusion. Hope that makes sense.UserNumber (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: Could you give some specific references? Sylhet came into British possession soon after East India Company received the Diwani of Bengal in 1765, and fought with the Jaintia king for control. On the other hand, the Dimasa kingdom did not come into possession of the EIC till 1832, and even so the royal seat was Khaspur, near present-day Silchar. Silchar came into prominence only after the EIC possession. So it is more likely Sylhet had some influence on the name Silchar, not the other way around. It is generally believed that Sylhet derives from Srihatta. Chaipau (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

UserNumber by specific reference, do you have examples of the use of "Silhet" and an extant account of how the spelling changed to "Sylhet", for instance. I am wary of published "urban legends". Chaipau (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Cachar Bengali

@Abu Ayyub: it is not clear from the Tunga reference what he means by "Cachar Bengali". He goes on to call the mixture of "Cachar Bengali" with Sylheti "Cachar-Sylheti Bengali". This means that Cachar Bengali is not Sylheti. Does he mean that what passes for standard Bengali in Cachar is different from the standard Bengali as spoken in Kolkata or Dhaka? Chaipau (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

From page 44 it speaks about the dialects, it falls under Sylheti so it is a variant of Sylheti, as Grierson mentioned there is the western and eastern variants of the dialect/language. Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Abu Ayyub: In page 44, he mentions "Cachar Bengali", "Sylhet Bengali" and "Cachar-Sylhet Bengali". Then he calls "Cachar-Sylhet Bengali" Sylheti. Then he says it belongs to the Kamrupi group. This is one of the most confusing paragraphs I have ever read and it does not clarify anything. We should not include this here just because someone has published it (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Chaipau (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is kind of confusing mainly because of the name that is used, however I believe it requires more research on how linguists classified this dialect to understand it better. Grierson or this author is referring to it as a dialect of a dialect, those who view Sylheti as a language will view Eastern Sylheti (Cachari Sylheti) and Western Sylheti (of Greater Sylhet) as two close dialects of the language or a slight variant. Abu Ayyub (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is well known that some consider it a language and others a dialect of Bengali. Most recent linguists seem to lean towards a language. The article should be NPOV and not implicitly suggest one or the other. Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Abu Ayyub: I suspect Avik Gangopadhyay's book is not WP:RS. The language it is written, in parts, is too close to that of Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, replaced it with hopefully a more reliable source. Abu Ayyub (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti

@Abu Ayyub: The origin of the Sylheti is Sylhet town. Sylhet town → Sylhetiya → Sylheti. The Sylhet region, Sylhet district and Sylhet Division all derive from Sylhet town. It is preposterous to suggest that when Sylhetiya is derived from Sylhet town, Sylheti is derived from the Sylhet region, especially when the people themselves did not call it Sylheti before the Europeans started calling it Sylhetia. Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This issue I believe relates to what came first the town/now city or region. Srihatta was a historic region in which Sylhet derives its name from hence I have indicated Sylhet's ancient name. Those Europeans who called it Sylhettia called it after the town, but where is the evidence to show that this is in connection to "Sylheti"? Since the natives did not adopt it as "Sylhettia". Those who call it Sylheti may call it based on the fact this is the speech of the Sylhet region as a whole not just Sylhet town/city as indicated by that reference. Most important here is the source, we should indicate the information with a reliable reference otherwise it leads to own research. About this naming topic of Sylhet I would refer you to Ana Crespo Solana (2014) pages 223-226. If you find anything contrary to my input please let me know, thanks. Abu Ayyub (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the wordings to keep it neutral acknowledging some may base the origin name by the city and others by the region, hope that helps. Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Abu Ayyub: the wording is much better now. In general, it is settlements that gave the name to a region; and Sylhet town was indeed called Srihatta. It became a fortified center that controlled the region around and gave its name to it. But that is not the point. Grierson makes very specific and critical claims. If a later author has refuted that, then that refutation has to be specifically made—a passing reference is not enough. Chaipau (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Chaipau:, you are right the people did not call it Sylheti, but they did call it Srihattiya as Grierson mentions, and there are some other sources as well.UserNumber (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: To be exact, Grierson mentions specifically that speakers of the language called it Purba Srihattiya. He also says that the language was predominant in the North and Northeast of the district (around Sylhet town), and that the speakers constituted 678,000 out of 2,033,000 Bengali speakers, which makes it the speech of about 33% of the Bengali speakers of the district. So clearly, not even a simple majority of the population of the then Sylhet district spoke the language at the turn of the 20th century. Grierson's claim has been well worked out. Sylhet city is in the northeast of the current division; the language was spoken around Sylhet town in the north and northeast of the division and the speakers called it Purba-Sylhettiya; and that about 33% of the population of the then district spoke the language. All of these facts make sense together. To better understand the historical development of the language, these facts are extremely important, especially since Sylhet town had been a refuge at first to Hindu holdouts after the 13th century, then to Afghan holdouts in the 16th century and finally in the 17th century it became a frontier outpost to the Mughals. These historical facts form the background of the development of the language and gels well with the picture painted by Grierson. Chaipau (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: This is very interesting indeed. What other dialects (66%) could have been prominent in Sylhet district then?UserNumber (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: According to Grierson, the rest spoke "ordinary eastern Bengali" (p221). Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Those figures are interesting but what exactly is that "ordinary eastern Bengali" spoken in the region is it more closer to standard Bengali? If Sylheti was the minority spoken language as is claimed then when did it become the majority? The statistics does raise some eyebrows. Abu Ayyub (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Abu Ayyub:, I believe it is referring to Bangali, which is in between Standard Bengali (Nadia dialect) and Sylheti. There is no evidence of the actual number of Sylheti speakers in the world today; those that have "calculated" it just totalled the population of Sylhet Division and Barak Valley, which is incorrect. Western parts of Sylhet Division do not speak Sylheti nor have they ever. UserNumber (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean parts of Sunamganj or Habiganj that don't speak it? The only source which I came across that percisely showed the distrubution of Sylheti was the North East Bangladesh map of Ethnologue which highlighted Sylheti being spoken throughout the division expect for the north west of Sunamganj and the south west of Habiganj. Abu Ayyub (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these parts of Sunamganj and Habiganj are not known to speak Sylheti, yet the statistics are just based on the population of the entire district. Also worth mentioning the tea tribes (Beens, Laleng and Bonaz) and ethnic minorities (Manipuri, Khasi) of Sylhet have their own languages as well. UserNumber (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: Thanks for your inputs. Yes, this seems very reasonable. I have checked Chatterji (1926) and he puts two different regions of Sylhet in two different dialect groups. He puts eastern Sylhet and Cachar (by which he probably means Sylheti) under "Eastern and Southeast Vanga" and northwest Sylhet in "Western and Southwest Vanga". So Chatterji seems to agree with Grierson as well as your inputs that Sylheti name is indeed related to the city and not to the province. Chaipau (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: What do we do with the population situation? It's really inaccurate as it is just equating the number of Sylheti speakers with population of Greater Sylhet & Cachar. The sources are unreliable. UserNumber (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: I have seen 11 million mentioned in different articles—so we could use this number with a note that no official enumeration exists. Effectively, we just report the fact. Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Chaipau's suggestion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tunga - WP:RS?

I have gone through some of Tunga's claims as used in this article, but these claims are either too bold not supported by anyone else of repute, or not critical enough. We need better citations than Tunga. Chaipau (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber:? @Abu Ayyub:? Chaipau (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising your concerns I was also questioning its reliability, I have removed them for now unless its reliability is established we can put them back in. Abu Ayyub (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

All the Indo-Aryan language articles like Bengali language, Hindi, Gujarati language only mentions Indo-Aryan language as the classification in the lead. There is no need to mention further classifications like Bengali-Assamese languages since they are already there in the infobox, it's WP:UNDUE. I have changed the lead of this article to reflect this conventional lead style with only keeping Indo-Aryan languages and removing Bengali-Assamese languages from the lead. UserNumber, let me know your opinion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: then why have you inserted the "Vangiya" group? Vangiya is a grouping that is no longer used. Much has happened in the study of Sylheti since 1926, when his work was published. His classification is no longer accepted not just on Sylheti but other languages as well. Chaipau (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping only Indo-Aryan language in the lead but waiting for the consensus. Since you argued in your edit summary that the nearest group must be mentioned, I replaced Bengali-Assamese with Vangiya since that's the nearest one. Glottolog mentions the nearest group as Eastern Bengali, we can use this name if you want. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have not changed—picking and choosing what suits your POV. Why should the info-box follow Ethnologue (with Vangiya added) and the lead follow Glottolog? Ethnologue and Glottolog do not agree exactly. You are convoluting the whole issue to push you nationalistic POV, once again. Chaipau (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It's quite strange that on Rangpuri Language, you argued to include Chatterji's classification of Kamrupic in the article but now you are saying the same source cannot be used for the classification here. What's more swindling is that you are indulging in the exact offenses that you are accusing me here. Try one more aspersion and I'll report you. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Even the classification of Rangpuri from Chatterji is not how it is understood today. Thanks to Austronesier, we know now that Glottolog places Rangpuri under Kamta, in parallel to Bengali. And if you want to place Sylheti outside Bengali following Glottolog, then please do so, but consistently.

As far as your behavior is concerned, if you are keen on reopening the ANI discussion, then please do so, so we may have closure.

Chaipau (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm in favor of mentioning only the Indo-Aryan language in the lead per other similar articles. If we are to mention the nearest classification, it has to be Vangiya as Chatterji classifies it which in fact you have supported yourself to use it on Bengali-Assamese languages and now you are opposing it to push your POV. Before asking for consistency you need to be consistent in your own statements.

As far as ANI is concerned, going with your history, it seems several other editors like Bhaskarbhagawati, Kmzayeem have experienced similar disruptive behavior by you on different disputes. It would be worth having proper inspection on your behavioral conduct. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, since you have removed Vangiya from the infobox then we should remove Kamrupic from Rangpuri and the map from Bengali-Assamese language as well. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all the bad blood flowing freely over content dispute, can I propose that this be taken to RfC? And if not solved still, to DRN? Why fight when you can get opinions? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Asking all the editors to stop flamebaiting the discussion. Keep it civil and reach a consensus instead of edit-warring. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on family tree

Great idea Aditya Kabir. Here it is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#RfC_on_Sylheti_language_-_Family_tree. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Nooooo... shame on my inability to explain. You got it completely upside down. Post the RfC here, leave the message there. And, please, read WP:RfC. What you have posted is anything but an RfC, which happens to be a procedure (with templates to use and forms to fill), not a casual discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: let us get some expert comments first. This is not a simple dispute. This is a linguistics issue first. Let us get their opinions first. Chaipau (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: That's okay. But this one is not an appropriate RfC, and in a dispute resolution procedure this will most likely not count. Doing the right is good, but doing it the right way is better. You see we need to play by FIFA guidelines when playing professional football, and by Wikipedia guidelines when editing the Wikipedia. (By the way, I can start the RfC too, and apply the process(es) if there's a need.) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We may not need a formal RfC. Chaipau (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing standard

@UserNumber: I have reverted your removal of cited text and quote. Could we please discuss here if there are issues with this claim first? Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Language vs Dialect

@UserNumber and Abu Ayyub: I think we need to be upfront about the language/dialect status of Sylheti and not try to hide it one way or another. Wikipedia cannot and should not take sides in this debate. Chaipau (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's too problematic regarding its classification I think the best thing Wikipedia should do is present it from a neutral point of view as best as possible. Opinions of both sides should be presented from reliable references and left for the readers to decide, simple. This is the same case for Scots, you could go on and on about this. Abu Ayyub (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. We should present what is being said in the literature with due weight. It might become a little easier if we are able to separate the taxonomy issues from the language/dialect issue. Chaipau (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well currently it looks fine what else is there to add or fix? Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes. It is looking much better. It states what others have said without having to invent our own language. No linguist or non-lingust has called it a "lect"—they have either called it a language or dialect. Chaipau (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, you need to filter out the POV terms and also watch out for close paraphrasing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A lect can be a language or dialect. It's less controversial and unspecific. UserNumber (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is a controversy, it should be stated. What we cannot do is present a misleading picture that a controversy does not exist. I have created a section where this controversy can be discussed in neutral language. Chaipau (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the problem with close paraphrasing? All citations quote the original authors' text. No plagiarism here. What you cannot do is misrepresent the original author with modifications to your liking which will be WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am finding that the link to language is being diverted to variety time and time again. This is POV pushing, since the source clearly calls it a language. There are other who call it a dialect which is also mentioned here. So both should be properly represented. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing is when you desperately try to portray it as a language whereas it is mostly considered a dialect. Variety is a neutral term without any claims to either language or dialect. Stick to it. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should state variety to keep it neutral, even in the recent study by Thaut etc. although they call it a language do refer it to as a variety. Also we shouldn't think that there is a unanimous consensus regarding its classification after this release. Abu Ayyub (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the current version of the lead and discuss here before making any changes to it. I'd suggest adding few lines on Sylheti literature, like works of Hason Raja and stuff. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have inserted an additional reference from a professional linguist Sameer Ud Dowla Khan. It is now fairly well established that Sylheti is an independent language. Chaipau (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece, not a scholarly article. When there are plenty of scholarly articles on the subject, we don't need to cite an opinion piece and that too in the lead. You have been told to discuss here and reach a consensus before making changes to the lead. We have all agreed to use "Variety" as a neutral term but you are still POV-pushing by changing it. Please stop! Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: At this point it seems you have appointed yourself as a gatekeeper. There is no point in discussing this with you if you keep WP:STONEWALLing which, I would like to point out, is WP:DE. That Sylheti is a language is claimed by Simard at al as well as Sameek Khan who is a professional linguist himself. It is an opinion piece, yes, and it is the opinion of a linguist. I wonder why your opinion should count more here. I ask you to desist from removing a legitimate reference. Chaipau (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, it seems everyone here is a gatekeeper to you as all of us are opposed to your POV of removing "Variety" from the lead. Abu Ayyub has already said we should keep it neutral by stating it as "Variety". UserNumber also said it multiple times that it is less controversial and unspecific. It is only you who seems to be too adamant to push a particular POV which now seems to be a breach of WP:IDHT. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is clear. Independent language vs dialect of Bengali. In such a case why should the "language" be construed as "variety"? Variety is another way of saying it is a dialect What the lead sentence effectively ends up saying when you insert "variety" is: "some say Sylheti is a dialect while others say it is a dialect". Does this make sense to you? I guess it might because that is what you are claiming. Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Variety has an ambiguous meaning and could refer to either a language or a dialect which is why it is applied here as a neutral term. When you describe it as a "language", you are clearly taking a side. The lead perfectly makes sense per WP:NPOV, there is an ambiguity on the status and it is generally seen as a dialect of Bengali language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Now once Abu Ayyub removed the clause about the dialect from the lead sentence, it makes more sense. You cannot use dialect and variety in the same sentence to represent a conflict. The second paragraph is still POV. From the recent evidence most linguists seem to overwhelming favor the language identification.

I have given my explanation to keep it as 'language variety' it is the best way to describe it since those who see it as a dialect should have no problem with this description and those who see it as a language shouldn't have a problem as well since it encompasses everything. In that new publication they refer to it as the vernacular variety too. So everybody's happy. Who would have thought a vernacular can create such controversy, does make me proud to be a member of this group. Abu Ayyub (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Abu Ayyub: Yes, language variety in the lead sentence looks good now. I have NPOV-ized the language/dialect sentence in the lead by following the words in the source. It is shaping up to be good. Also, I really don't think dialect should point to the "Vangiya" page; but to Bengali dialects. This is because the Bengali dialects page is more accurate with more information and thus more helpful. Pointing to a page with wrong information, where Sylheti itself is mentioned explicitly not be a part, is confusing to to say the leat. On a personal note, I hope you are proud of the language will teach your children Sylheti. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, you are not "NPOVising", you are still POV pushing, Rasinger and several others clearly state that Sylheti is generally considered a dialect while some linguists consider it an independent language. You are just reversing the position to suit your POV. The mention of Vangiya is also valid as UserNumber stated earlier, to clarify the dialect group where Sylheti falls into. The Bangali (ethnic dialect) article has also been improved with citations so there shouldn't be any issue. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please look at this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Sylheti_language_-_how_should_we_address_the_language_vs_dialect_issue?. Chaipau (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Rasinger 2007

The the current version of the article has the following quote from Rasinger 2007: The linguistic classification of Sylheti is problematic and heavily debated... Sylheti is generally defined as a dialect of Bengali.

Now, the second part of the quote, which supports a similar statement in the Wikipedia article, is a bit misleading. First off, it is itself a quote from Chalmers's 1996 primer, so it reflects the way Sylheti was defined pre-1996 (which was before any modern literature on the topic was present). Second, I'm not sure whether Chalmers himself agrees with this statement: I don't have access to his book, but from the other passage quoted in Rasinger (about Sylheti and Bengali being "near enough mutually unintelligible"), I would definitely not take that for granted.

Regardless, Rasinger does indeed state a little bit later (on p. 27): Intelligibility of Standard Bengali for Sylhetis, the geographically clearly defined use of Sylheti, and its usage by a predominantly rural population indicate that Sylheti may indeed be a dialect of Standard Bengali. If you need a source supporting the dialect view, this definitely is one. However, this should be taken with a lot of salt. Rasinger doesn't treat Sylheti at any great length (his book is a study of Bangladeshis' use of English), and his premises are shaky. His mutual intelligibility, for example, largely applies one way (and as he himself concedes, it's based on reports by people who speak both Bengali and Sylheti). More importantly though, it's clear from this quote that he uses the term "dialect" in a way that's closer to the everyday meaning ("low-prestige variety") than to the meaning usually employed in linguistics texts, including Wikipedia articles ("a sufficiently distinct variety"). It will be really difficult to argue that something is a dialect just because it's spoken in rural areas and has low prestige. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I have added the full quote from Chalmer (1996) as given in Rasinger (2007) [4]. It does not support the text now and I think we will have to modify it to align with the quote. Thanks for pointing out where Rasinger is claiming Sylheti is a dialect—I shall try to incorporate it in a subsequent portion of the text. Chaipau (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made changes to the first paragraph of Sylheti_language#Language-dialect_controversy. I have tried to incorporate u:Uanfala's observations on Rasinger, and restructured it logically to highlight the debate in the linguistic community and not here. Could you please point out where it could be improved further? Chaipau (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The claim at the start of the paragraph – generally identified as a dialect of Bengali – may have been accurate when Chalmers made it 25 years ago, but it's not any more. I assume you're waiting for the discussion at WT:LING to conclude before changing that? – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, waiting for a resolution there. Since, as you point out, this was true in 1996, I shall change "is" to "was". Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Za-ari-masen has reverted it back to "is" citing Chung. I wonder how we may reconcile Chung? My take on this is that Sylheti might "generally" have been considered to be a dialect in 1996, but not any more. Chung is in the minority in the present times. In any case Chung's is of type #1—that you mentioned in the WT:LING—a passing reference and not type #2 a positive assertion. Therefore it hardly carries any weight. Chaipau (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you calculate minority and majority based on 2/3 literatures. There are many linguists who continue to call it a dialect. Uanfala told you to wait for the discussion to conclude before changing it to "was" which again you have ignored. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Following your assertion There are many linguists who continue to call it a dialect could you please cite some linguists from recent times (after 1996) who have made a positive linguistic assertion that Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali? By positive linguistic assertion I mean of the type #2 as defined by Uanfala here: [5]. He has identified only Rasinger and Simard in #2 so far, though I think Sen 2020 also falls in this category. Chung falls under type #1, a passing reference.

Also, you characterization of the discussion between me and Uanfala could not have been more misleading. Chaipau (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen, you should be aware that selectively picking the bits in the discussion that suit your view (even if they're taken out of context) and ignoring everything else makes it less likely for others to take your participation here seriously.
I'm still not convinced about the whole "generally considered" bit. Considered by whom? By linguists? Certainly not, at least not any more. By the Sylhetis themselves? Possibly, but we'd need an explicit source. The current statement can be salvaged if explicitly attributed to Chalmers, but then it would need to be qualified with mentions of the year in which it was made (1996 was before much of the literature was written), and of Chalmers's own point of view (which I take to be different from the one he was quoting). – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made changes to the text—inserting Chalmers and the year. Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: you made a number of reverts claiming Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali belonging to the Vangiya group. [6], [7]. But it has been pointed out that Vangiya is not a dialect group of Bengali but eastern Magadhi. Chatterji does not intend to classify these lects as dialects of Bangla. Therefore, Chatterji’s four dialects—Rāḍha, Varêndra, Vaŋga, and Kāmrupa—should not be termed ‘dialects of Bengali’ but rather, ‘dialects [in the sense of historical derivatives] of eastern Magadhan’. (Toulmin 2019, p218). In any case, we cannot use Chatterji (1926) to make a claim today since this work is nearly a hundred years old. Chaipau (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to make separate pages for Sylheti Language and Sylheti Bangla Dialect. So both parties can contribute. It seems like some users just reverting all information to Bengali.

Separating pages for Language and dialect can make space to contribute more. Slake000 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sileti vs Siloti

@UserNumber: could you please show some verifiable RS that says both Sileti and Siloti were used? Currently the only WP:V and WP:RS source Simard says /siloti/ is the original whereas the /sileti/ replacement is part of the minoritization. Chaipau (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

We should keep it as Sylheti, this is universally referred to as such. It is mentioned in the Name section that it is the anglicanised version, which later was adopted in the Bengali language and by Sylhetis. Syloti is the historical name but is used still by some. It has nothing to do with minoritization. Abu Ayyub (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Biased Simard's source is full of inaccuracies such as claiming that Silet is "Bengali" and Silot is Sylheti and that it's the result of minoritisation. Anyway, myself and all the other users have already established the difference between Silet and Silot in the names of Sylhet. The former (Silet) emerged from the Anglicisation "Sylhet" of Silhat/Silhot. It's archaic and incorrect to say this is the result of Bengali opression. Sylheti Nagri script flourished during British period and in fact, Silet was more common than Silot. Please Chaipau stop starting edit wards over everything. Here is RS: https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP071-30-20 UserNumber (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: I know you do not like Simard, but that does not make that work biased. If Sylhet /silet/ is an Anglicization of Silhot /silot/, it stands to reason that /silot/ is original. I shall accept Abu Ayyub's statement that it is the historical pronunciation. Also, please note that WP:BRD, which I follow and which is recommended, is not WP:EW. Chaipau (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, you are surely not following WP:BRD, when you are reverted, you revert it back to your version, that is edit warring. You have been told several times to first discuss and achieve a consensus here before making any contentious edits, but you're still not listening. Also, I agree, some of the sources added by Chaipau don't look credible. Take a look at the op-ed by Khan, which is not a scholarly source to cite contentious claims and where Sylheti is only mentioned in passing. I think UserNumber also has expressed concern on this source. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, people. I am seeing a lot of fights over Bengali-Assamese languages. And the fights are largely between a handful of people. That's seriously bad. I would request everyone to ask for some community intervention, not to get an upper hand over someone or something but to come to a decision. Fighting is a big barrier to article development. There are reports available on how article development is inversely proportionate to the level of fights. If you people really care about the article then stop fighting first. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 14:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only that @Aditya Kabir:, I remember on one occasion I was taking part in good-faith edits on the Miya people page, and they started accusing me of so many different things and I ended up getting blocked by Wikipedia. These guys fight over the smallest things. Anyway, I left the Miya people page because it was clear that that part of Wikipedia is being dominated by a certain group of gatekeepers with agendas. It's no longer true to say Wikipedia is a "free Encyclopedia". UserNumber (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Community interventions – RfC, DRN, ANI etc. – are the best solution is such a case. When fighting is great, you need great patience to handle the stuff. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 15:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: For what it is worth, this issue (Sileti/Siloti) is resolved. I have accepted Abu Ayyub's argument and I shall edit to make these points clearer to me (so they are clear to others as well). OTOH, there is just such a discussion going on whether Sylheti is a language or dialect. All of us there agree that Sylheti is a language except UserNumber and Za-ari-masen with Abu Ayyub neutral. Do have a look at the thread. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Sylheti_language_-_how_should_we_address_the_language_vs_dialect_issue?. Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Project pages, while often a good place to discuss, may not be too effective here. The best place is DRN, but it requires an RfC first. Ignoring tried and tested Wikipedia mechanism might turn out to be a futile exercise. You may use that threat, but I am pretty confident that it will never achieve a definite consensus. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue needs specialist inputs because this article page involves linguistics and some technical definitions. I have had experience with going the DRN route without specialist inputs and they too have ended in failure. So do AGF on this route Chaipau (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Specialist input", whatever that means, is not above any Wikipedia process. If any warring continues in the name of specialist input, the community will not take it lightly. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 10:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

By "specialist input" I mean Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Subject-specific_help. This is a part of the dispute resolution process. Chaipau (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Silot (ছিলট) is the historical common colloquial Bengali name. The Anglicised "Sylhet" became popular, and so the most common spelling in Bengali is Silet (সিলেট). Check the 1846 Calcutta Gazette UserNumber (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact Simard mentions something very similar: In Bangladesh and Assam Sylheti endonyms have practically been replaced by place names in Bengali. Many younger speakers do not recognise [silɔʈ] ‘Sylhet’, and only know the Bengali term [silɛʈ], with some claiming, ironically, that [silɔʈ] must be a foreign creation. So Simard is suggesting that Silot is the original endonym, and Silet the Bengali name that is becoming the endonym now. Silet sounds more like an European pronunciation of Silhot to me, which was probably what the Calcutta based standard Bengali picked up. Chaipau (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to simplify the names and spellings in the lead. The idea is to give the two alternative names in the lead with their pronunciation and discuss details in the Sylheti language#Name section. I tried to use {{IPAc-en}} for the alternative name, but could determine how to encode [ɔ]. Austronesier could you please help? Chaipau (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Disregarding for the moment that "Syloti" is pretty uncommon as an English name (but not non-existent), how should that o be pronounced? If it rhymes with Pavarotti or Lottie, we'd transcribe it as /sɪˈlɒti/. –Austronesier (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks, the /ɔ/ seems to be closest to /ɒ/ in RP (according to Open-mid_back_rounded_vowel#Occurrence). But we will probably have to keep it on the backburner for now. Nevertheless, I have a weakness for native names that cannot be properly represented with the phonetic inventory of another language. Chaipau (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti and Syloti are English words. Sylheti comes from Bengali <śileṭi> and Syloti comes from Sylheti <siloṭi>. In English the term Sylheti is more commonly used. And in Sylheti the term <siloṭi> is the original one and commonly used. Though I don't know which one is more common in Sylheti. All of my Sylheti speaking relatives and known people irl call it <siloṭi>. We should keep the English (or other languages) and Sylheti words separately. Msasag (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that you are careful in distinguishing /ś/ in Bengali from /s/ in Sylheti. Since this article is in English, we should use the English spelling and pronunciation in the lead. My take from Simard is that the native name of the language is "Siloti". If we cannot determine the native name (<śileṭi> vs <siloṭi>), I would suggest not putting it in the lead. We could discuss the issues in the "Name" section itself. My concern here is that having too many names in the lead will make the article less approachable for a new reader. Chaipau (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no source for the alternative spelling "Syloti" in English, since we are only keeping the English spelling and pronunciations I have removed it from the lead. Austronesier had earlier added a cn tag to it but it was somehow removed in later edits. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your lead on the lead. But I have restored the alternative name in the Infobox. There is not need to suppress the native name. Chaipau (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any suppression and you said it yourself that we are yet to determine which one is the native name. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said it for the lead, not for the Infobox. I have restored both native versions in the Infobox. Please do not make this an issue. Chaipau (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau:, you have misunderstood. Silot was used in Bengali. Sylhet does not come from Bengali, it comes from English. I proved with the source that Silot was previously used in Bengali too. The English were the first to change the last vowel a/o to e. UserNumber (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Simard says that the native name is "Siloti", so we do have a source for it. Msasag (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: Yes, we all agree that "Silot" was the native name that was used in Bengali too. You have demonstrated that and Simard too has said so. Simard is the source for this claim. We also agree that Sylhet is originally of European usage. We have Grierson as source for this claim. Do Bengalis use Silot now? They don't—they use "Ṥilet". Simard claims that many Sylhetis now use "Silet" and not "Silot", which you too are claiming. So yes, even though "Silet" was originally coined by the Europeans, the Sylhetis are learning to use "Silet" instead of their native name not from the Europeans but from the Bengali. This is what Simard is implying. Chaipau (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Coined by the Europeans, the Bengalis (including Sylhetis) started to use Silet as this became the official name. Most Sylhetis use Sylhet, and have been using Sylhet for centuries now. Sylhet was under European control, so Sylheti-Bengalis got it from Europeans. The Bengali language is not just the language of central and western Bengal, it is also the language of Sylhet. UserNumber (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: We are talking about the name in Sylheti language, not in Bengali language. Many people say Bengoli for Bengali in Bengali. Though it's not considered as a Bengali word, Bangla is considered as the Bengali word. Here we are using both native siloṭi and borrowed sileṭi because both are used. But the native name should be given more priority. Msasag (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag:, terms change over time for many languages. siloṭi is an archaic term. Even if sileṭi is borrowed from English, it is the most popular term. Archaic terms shouldn't be given priority. UserNumber (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: It's not an archaic name. Many people still use it, and all of my Sylheti speaking relatives and other known people irl from Assam only use siloṭi as I mentioned. Msasag (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If it is used now, it is not archaic. Chaipau (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti dictionary

Does a Sylheti dictionary exist? Grierson (p=224) mentions that the History and Statistics of Sylhet District has a vocabulary of words peculiar to the Sylhet District. I don't think this can be called a dictionary. Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

When I wrote dictionary, I just meant it in a general sense. If you think the word is misleading or inappropriate, feel free to change.UserNumber (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can word it differently. But if there is any other dictionary (even a partial one, unpublished), the information will be a significant addition to the article. Chaipau (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no Sylheti dictionaries because it is a dialect not a lamguage. You can get phrasebooks but no Sylheti whether in Bangladesh or India nor any non-Sylheti Bengalis considers it a language. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There are many sylheti dictionaries. One of them is 'London Sylheti Dictionary' by Mr. Roger another one is by dr. devanath (I forgot the name) and there are more. And Sylheti isn't a dialect but a language which was developed together with old Bengali since 2nd century. And what you know as modern bengali started to be developed since 15-16th century. 118.179.17.126 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Issues

Please mention specific grievances with my edits.:Apart from transposition of sentences, removal of redundant lines, and re-titling of sections, I don't see any significant change. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent developments make it fairly clear that Sylheti is a separate language. There's no beating around the bush. Also, far important is the political background to these recognition discourses. Which doesn't find a mention. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You edits didn't involve just copyediting: they also, for example, changed a sentence about the academic consensus about the range of mutual intelligibility into the very different claim that there was no such consensus. It also removed the basis for why Rasinger considered Sylheti to be a Bengali dialect: this is worth including, because it defers from what linguistics normally take into account in similar cases. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala and TrangaBellam: Given the recent changes are substantial, I think it is best to maintain status quo. Please provide specific instances where the WP:CONSENSUS text is falling short. Chaipau (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I did not remove the rationale on the basis of which Raisinger considered it as a dialect. Please be specific.

My version stated Anecdotal evidence suggests that Sylhetis, who could also speak in Standard Bengali, considered the two languages to be mutually intelligible.[58][46] Additionally, it is found alongside Bangla and is spoken by a predominantly rural community; Rasinger (2007) thus concludes that Sylheti could be considered a dialect of Bengali.

My bad about the consensus on the range of mutual intelligibility. I have certain doubts but need to read Chalmer (1996) before commenting further. So, what are the other issues with my version? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry: I was reading only the diff and didn't notice the full context. – Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Since the consensus is sourced to Chalmer (1996), it may be important to quote him (p. 6-7) — It is probably fair to say that the academic consensus today is that Sylheti and Standard Bengali are near enough mutually unintelligible. This is sourced to a single source — Professor Maniruzzaman of Dhaka University, alleged to be the leading expert on Bengali dialects — who had concluded that the two were hardly intelligible. And also, to some amount of hypothetical pleading.

Since then, I have seen atleast three reliable sources which have claimed Bengali and Sylheti to be "some degree of intelligible". There have been critiques of such observations, as well. So unless, some reliable source engages in an exhaustive search of sources (or something similar) to conclude wherein the consensus lies, I am unwilling to take any such claims at face value.

It may be also important to note that when Chalmer wrote the book, there were virtually nil publications on Sylheti in Anglophone journals etc.TrangaBellam (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You may look at Chalmer (1996) for your own reference, but the current reference is better because Wikipedia would prefer an opinion on Chalmer from a WP:RS than an editor. Please look at WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Chaipau (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the same you, who went on and on over another discussion, about how every scholar has felt to the traps of propaganda and got the details wrong? I am merely emphasizing that Chalmer had some amount of doubt in his own observation (usage of the word probably). Anyways, restored to the original wording. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Uanfala, I would like to know of your preference/opinion between my version and status quo. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala and TrangaBellam: TrangaBellam does a major restructuring of the section.

• His version does away with the section called classification and then creates two different subsection—language, dialect. This is no better than just having a table or a poll on how many sources say it is a language or dialect. This is a regression where the exact logic and interplay of arguments get lost. This is why Rasinger's claim and justification was lost. A proper comparison would be to use subsections such as "intelligibility", "phonetics", "grammer", "lexicon" etc if we really need to divide up the secition.
• The discussion of the classification is totally most. This is also the part where some initial work of Greirson and Chatterji were reported. This part is important because it gave a historical context for the understanding of the language.
• Onviously, this is not mere copydeiting.

Chaipau (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is why Rasinger's claim and justification was lost. You have probably missed Uanfala noting Ah, sorry: I was reading only the diff and didn't notice the full context. The rest hardly make any sense, and forms a pattern of you stonewalling changes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Chaipau:. Also, there is clearly a difference of opinion between linguists regarding the topic of mutual intelligibility between Sylheti and Standard Bengali. It should also be noted that some linguists solely refer to the Standard register while others regard to the language as a whole (which includes other eastern Bengali dialects that are very close to Sylheti). UserNumber (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is clearly a difference of opinion between linguists regarding the topic of mutual intelligibility between Sylheti and Standard Bengali. And, what am I to do with that? I restored whatever was there, originally. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The difference of opinion is duly noted: Sylheti_language#cite_note-63 [T]he academic consensus on mutual intelligibility between Sylheti and Bengali ranges from ‘unintelligible’ to ‘hardly intelligible’ (Chalmers 1996).. The quote also says what the academic consensus is and the academic consensus is that it is a range. Also, mutual intelligibility is not the be all and end all in this issue. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you replying this to me? My latest version states the same. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the time to look more closely, so I'll just share some observations. This part of the article was extensively discussed in the past, but the consensus there concerns the substance of the claims, rather than any particular wording. People are in principle free to copy-edit without seeking prior approval, and I believe that Trangabellam's edits did at least in some parts make the prose flow better. In some places, however, they seemed to inadvertently shift the focus. Particularly in the restructuring of the "Classification" section (and apologies if I've misunderstood anything again – I've only had the time for a quick look). For any language article, its classification (i.e. what other languages it is related to) is an important aspect of the topic, generally more central than any language/dialect controversies. And the controversies themselves are in my opinion better treated the "holistic" way, rather than splitting the text into two sections as though there are two opposing camps of scholars (no there aren't: Grierson called Sylheti a dialect, but in his time the word was used very differently from today; similarly for the others: the differences seem to largely stem from different understandings of the word rather than different understandings of reality). – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will merge the two subsections and treat the issues in a holistic fashion. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: already done for you! Chaipau (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Status and Classification sections

I am seeing a lot of overlap with these two sections, and suggest that they be merged due to their similarities. Both of them address the dialect-language issue and cite the opinion of different linguists. UserNumber (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

They may look like they are similar, but the status addresses other issues---such as whether it is endangered, official status and support etc. Though the two issues could be linked they are quite independent. For example a language could be endangered even if it is not a dialect. Chaipau (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tone - developed not due to contact with Tibeto-Burman languages

Also noteworthy is the development of tones due to loss of the breathiness and aspiration contrast. (see this note). That claim that tones are due to contact with Tibeto-Burman languages will require WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) (edited) 13:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

All good. Glottolog classified Sylheti with Hajong language (Tibeto-Burman) in Eastern-Bengali group.

For a user or readers point of view, there is no mention of this in the article. Such as how and what is the relation between this two.

I would suggest inclusion of this discussion in the article in a neutral point of view with relation or comparison. Slake000 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Provide verifiable WP:RS for specific claims. We cannot make WP:OR discussions in the article as it is against Wikipedia policies. Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala, Austronesier, and UserNumber: there is now yet another new editor trying to insert text that claims Sylheti is a Tibeto-Burman language. This is a rather radical claim. I can understand someone claiming it has a Tibeto-Burman stratum, but I am yet to come across any such claim in the literature I have seen so far. Furthermore, I have not been able to locate the source cited (Tanvir Ratul). The way the claim is worded now, it does not look like something that a professional linguist will make. What do you think? Chaipau (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have come across a category Category:Sylheti terms derived from Sino-Tibetan languages, where you can see other user activities. Slake000 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A category named, Category:Sylheti terms derived from Sino-Tibetan languages Slake000 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sylheti alphabet

The recently created article Sylheti alphabet could do with some attention. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: that article was probably either a WP:CF or a hoax. It now redirects to a section of this article. Chaipau (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

And the same article has now re-appeared at Sylara (there now also exist List of Books written in Sylara and Sylheti dialects). – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:PROMO. Should probably be deleted. Tagging Austronesier. Chaipau (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau, Uanfala, and UserNumber: List of Books written in Sylara looks like a candidate for WP:G11, what do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: yes I agree.

I think Sylara too is a candidate for WP:G11, though I think it is probably a recent development and an attempt to make the language attractive to those growing up in an environment where the Latin script is common and where these are limited resources to teach the native script(s). So I am fundamentally conflicted at how Wikipedia should address this conservation effort.

Chaipau (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There are no notable sources that mention anything about Sylara apart from its main primary source (books written by Munayem Mayenin) published from a self-publishing platform Lulu Press. UserNumber (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy deletion for List of Books written in Sylara, and a regular PROD for Sylara. –Austronesier (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Latin Script

I am not sure the sources I have seen regarding Latin as a script for Sylheti is convincing. The current reference [8] is not convincing to me. I am uncertain for what purpose Latin is being used for Sylheti and I am not certain it is a reliable source. We need to discuss this here before we can insert. Currently there are a number of editors who are resisting this writing system. @Slake000: please discuss the references here and before inserting it. Chaipau (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply to:Chaipau "Majority of written works related to this language currently using latin script, alongside Sylheti script.

(1) Omniglot (Syloti-Nagri alphabet, Eastern Nagari alphabet, Latin alphabet) https://omniglot.com/writing/syloti.htm

(2) Script source Sylheti Latin: https://scriptsource.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=subtag_detail&uid=qmmyqgtvdx Syloti Nagri https://scriptsource.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=script_detail&key=Sylo Bengali https://scriptsource.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=script_detail&key=Beng

(3) Bible translation discussed in the article used Latin script but it is not mentioned. Here is the Sylheti bible which was discussed in the article. https://www.sylhetikitab.org/syl-lat/home

(4) Tri-script including Latin is used in Sylheti publication http://www.sylheti.org.uk/publications-1"

(5) One of the reasons to use Latin script (Roman) - "Roman transcription as a gateway for heritage speakers and to facilitate learning the Sylheti Nagri script" Page 17. http://www.elpublishing.org/node/8371

Slake000 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) is not a reliable source. (2) is reliable and supported by the Sylheti entry in Ethnologue (Writing: Bengali (Bangla) script [Beng]. Latin script [Latn]. Syloti Nagri script [Sylo].), a reliable source from the same institution (SIL). (3)/(4) are attestations and don't say anything about actual usage/acceptance. (5) calls it a 'transcription' to facilitate learning; this is just an auxiliary usage.

Sourced to Ethnologue, I'd agree with the inclusion of Latin, and reorder with Bengali–Assamese mentioned first. –Austronesier (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comparison

For the comparison section: it may be better if the Bengali-Assamese Script is used to transcribe Sylheti so the comparison between them are all easier. Also, it is the most common script for Sylhet as we speak. SalamAlayka (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)