Talk:Canarese Konkani
Page contents not supported in other languages.
India: Karnataka B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Continuing the thread on Talk:Konkani language.
I do tend to write tersely at times; it is a shortcoming of mine. I do wish that you would acquaint your self with - all policies. Consensus is not needed for deleting unverified facts and original research. Imho, you would best be served by looking to learn how to write better articles than for policy/guidelines about disputes, etc. Until your article reaches a certain state of quality such as GA/A class/FA, the slow process of consensus is not mandantory.
The point is - you made a bold foray in introducing a whole new set of information which is contentious as already apparent from above. Your slugfest point is well taken - however, it is in the Bhanap community's best interest that any article be as accurate and unchallengeable as possible, and for that reason I would be willing to play the devil's advocate.
My aim was to tell you that the good will towards your editing notwithstanding, there are serious issues you need to tackle in improving this article, among which are proper referencing, what is encyclopedic and what is not, etc. Some are glaringly obvious to all but not you as you are yet to gain the experience - it will come in due course of time. The onus is on you especially since as many references you are adding are offline, not easily available and therefore not verifiable.
So, between you and me, as per your request from seasoned editors, I propose that you and I carry out a preliminary critical examination to resolve all issues which I have learnt by experience to date. Once these are sorted out then the article would be able to better able to withstand scrutiny by others. The style may be "military" but it would be honest and forthright.
If you concur, I will be willing to help out. If you have reservations, let me know. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:LEAD & try to achieve all its requirements.
Problems prima facie:
Please attempt this first before we go ahead.
AshLin (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have too many notes amongst the references. List out the references seperately. In the ref based citations, please give the short reference, with page numbers. I have done one to show you how. It will help the reader differentiate. Done
AshLin (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great that you segregated refs from footnotes.Now the refs themselves require improvement. Please use cite templates for all references - {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} or {{cite encyclopedia}} refer. DoneImperium Caelestis 12:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AshLin (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is littered with long notes for Religion & Writing System. Move the material into the main sections and give summary there. You may add (see text) as a closing phrase. AshLin (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Done (reduced image size and deleted additional info.)[reply]
The sections are badly organised. For example, all history material must go into history - rename it simply as "History". Reduce the subheadings. Let there be three sections - History, Language, People. Move all subsections into the appropriate section. AshLin (talk) Done (reorganised mishmash and deleted redundant info)Imperium Caelestis 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the sections now. They had a run at the abbatoir. lean enough?? Imperium Caelestis 06:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP is NOT a linkfarm or a directory.
Please delete section "Konkani organisations in Karnataka and Kerala". Similarly, keep the most important information in "Media and Arts" by converting it into meaningful, referenced prose and delete the lists. If you wish you can make lists such as List of Konkani language films later on (there are seperate guidelines for lists). Merge all these into "Konkani culture". However, this section should not be about Konkani culture per se, but about the use of Konkani language in culture, important events, impacts, etc. All this should be well-referenced of course.
AshLin (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pruned to your liking. all meat sans feathers. Imperium Caelestis 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community websites are not acceptable to Wikipedia when it comes to picking content of academic quality. Please eliminate content that has been attributed to these: Done
Specifically, these point to the 'Dialect Variation' table.¬ Aog hac 2z | 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that outlining the scope of this article takes precedence over attempting to rectify Manual of Style, at this point. This is what I suggest:
What do you guys think? Signed | Aoghac2z | 19:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
phase 1 : Do yoy agree on the article being written on the lines of Brazilian Portuguese. Go through the link and let me know.Imperium Caelestis 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take this moment to revisit the issues I had highlighted in the original post of this section. On the basis of my recommendation, the author of this article has changed the translation of the article topic to reflect correct grammar ( from कॅनरालॆं to कॅनराचॆं ); however the primary issue I'd highlighted above still persists: What is the academic relevance of this name (कॅनराचॆं कॊंकणि)? Which Konkani linguistic organizations use this term as is? Would you find this term in any of the academic journals? Using this term and listing it out in 4 different scripts on the very first line gives the readers a very wrong impression that this is an academic term used in linguistic circles.
Lastly, I have had no response on the relevance of Kerala Konkani dialects in Kanara Konkani. As I'd highlighted previously, the Kanara region is strictly confined to the coastal regions of Karnataka. Regions like Cochin and Ernakulam are WAY outside the boundaries of the Kanara belt. Kerala Konkani dialects cannot be included in this article as long as the article is named 'Canara Konkani'. ¬ Aog hac 2z | 15:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
awwww, c'mon Aoghac2z we've already concurred on the merging or Canara Konkani and Karnataka Konkani. Let us discuss the opening statement for the merged article once the page is merged. Given the current circumstances, it looks good as is.
as for your second part, Konkani speakers in Kerala belong to three major communities, the GSB's, the Kudumbis and the Catholics.
Narayan Govind Kalelkar classifies Konkani dialects into 3 groups:
On the other hand, George Cardona classifies Konkani dialects into the following groups:
Different linguists classify Konkani dialects differently... I don't have access to S.M. Katre's book Formation of Konkani, but I'm pretty sure he has classified them differently too. Taking George Cardona's classification as an example, we come to realize that although the Kerala Konkani dialects of Saraswats falls in the same group as that of the Kanara Saraswats, the Kanara Christian/Catholic dialects belong to a whole different group. All of this boils down to the simple fact that these classifications are purely based on linguistic grounds, not on geographical grounds.
Now, when you name your article's title as 'Kanara Konkani', or 'Karnataka Konkani', the classification becomes geographical, not linguistic. As this article stands today, you are including the Mangalorean Catholic dialects in this page too, which according to George Cardona belong to a separate dialect groups, distinct from Southern Saraswat Konkani. You would then argue that Mangalorean Konkani belongs to the very same region... but then that would mean that Konkani spoken by communities in Ernakulam and Cochin must be disregarded. As for your statement, that Language structure, dativisation and lexicon considered, the Karnataka dialects and Kerala dialects are similar, could you please provide a source that would corroborate your statement? Based on George cardona's classification, dialects spoken in Karnataka do not belong to one homogeneous group.
The way the article stands right now, it appears that the classification you're going by is: Goan dialects vs. non-Goan dialects. In that case, the most appropriate title for this article would be 'Non-Goan Konkani'. However, in my eyes, such a title would be quite immature.
As far as merging sections from this article into the main Konkani language article, I will tell you my opinions:
¬ Aog hac 2z | 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed my guts out at your last line; very well put. I am in total agreement if the the script part is struck off we could insert information with regards to other Konkani dialects. I concur with your point on the un-encyclopaedic part. Could we also get a new map to include coastal Karnataka and Kerala through proper channel?? you have my undivided support in this endeavour. State your plan of actionImperium Caelestis 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Aoghac2z whoa whoa whoa cowboy!!! I just read your comment (move significant portions of this article into the main Konkani language article). Read User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Exactly.21. He is extremely protective about that article. My experience with territorial creatures tells me that the howls are not a bother; it's the seldom bite part that should concern me. I wouldn't want my contributions to do a Kalpana Chawla. Please liaise with him. If I do it, rest assured it will be pruned off with an original research cherry topping. I don't mind being bold et al, but I already have my hands full at staving off Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Comments_on_talk_page Imperium Caelestis 22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across your comments in the irrelevance of the script part on the Konkani language page. I also saw subsequent comments. The majority opinion seems in favour of a traditional wedding feast with flatbread, rice, lentils, dry vegetable, veg. gravy, pickles, papad, buttermilk, maDganne strewn on one banana leaf. Not many people have found buffet appealing. However, lets give it a second shot :) Imperium Caelestis 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "Indian English" template. Please make certain that all the spellings are Anglicized, as Indian English uses British spellings. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 10:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Done Imperium Caelestis 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kukna refers to the dialect of Saraswats of Kerala and Karnataka. It does not include the dialect of the Mangalorean Catholics. See the Venn diagram under 'Marathi-Konkani languages' article. Kukna has several distinguishable features like elision, end vowels, the sounds 'ja' and 'cha' instead of 'dza' and 'tsa', etc. Please rename the article to 'Canara Konkani' or remove references to Mangalorean Catholic Konkani, which is actually similar to Bardez dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were several issues with the original article. The dialect of Mangalorean Catholics was included and the language was called Kukna. Kukna is the dialect of the Saraswats only. Please see the glotto codes for the two dialects - Kukna has http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/kukn1238 and Mangalorean Catholic has (mang1376). Mangalorean Catholic dialect is similar to Bardez dialect of Goa and the two have been grouped together. There are further inconsistencies with the article.
1. There is no link showing 'Canarese Konkani' as a separate language. The two links given in the first line don't point to anything meaningful.
2. While referring to the two dialects, a line goes like this "There is a slight difference between the Konkani dialects spoken by the Christian and the Hindu communities. They are, however, mutually intelligible". The source of the article is stated to be http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ijsl.1978.issue-16/ijsl.1978.16.77/ijsl.1978.16.77.xml. However the content of that article is in total contradiction with the given line. In fact Miranda says:
"In South Kanara, I have often come across Konkani Hindus andKonkani Christians speaking to each other in Kannada or Tulu. Althoughthere is mutual intelligibility between the Hindu Konkani and the ChristianKonkani dialects spoken in South Kanara, when the speakers are proficientin Kannada or Tulu they can communicate with greater ease in one of theselanguages by eliminating 'code noise'. Konkani speakers are likely to findthemselves in such a situation also in other areas. Of course, ease of communicationis not the only concern involved. The use of some otherlanguage might be more appropriate under the circumstances."
Further he adds:
"Hindu and Christian dialects are considerably different from each other also in the Kanara districts. It should be noted that the Konkani Hindus inthe Kanara districts migrated there about two centuries before the Christians.Hindu dialects in the Kanara districts show noticeably greater signsof Dravidian influence than the Christian dialects. This is not surprisingsince the Konkani Hindus have lived there much longer than the KonkaniChristians. The Hindu dialects in this area have also retained several archaicfeatures (such as Middle Indo-Aryan geminates in certain environments).19The Christian dialects, on the other hand, having been isolated from Goa for, a shorter period, show closer links with the Goan dialects and share severalcommon innovations."
Nowhere does Miranda state that the difference is slight. He also says that the Mangalorean Catholic dialect is closer to that of the Goans.
3. There are plenty more differences. "Come here" is given as "hanga yo" which is true with the dialect of Saraswats but not the Catholics. The Catholics say "hanga ye" just like the Antruzis and Bardeshkaris of Goa. All the differences between the dialects and the all the commonalities that the two dialects share with their Goan sister dialects (Antruz/Bardez in case of Catholics and Saxtti in case of Saraswats) are hidden. For e.g
a. The Antuz, Bardez and Mang.Cath. dialects don't show elision in connected speech. Canara Saraswat and Saxti dialects do.
b. The -che suffix is more common in the first three dialects mentioned above. It is mostly -gele in the last two.
c. Alveolar affricates are present in the former but not in the latter.
And so on.
If Mangalorean Catholic dialect is to be included, mention the differences between the two dialects. Or drop all references to 'Kukna'. Otherwise this article is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.17.3 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of removing all references to it they should be added back with these caveats Rbnmathias (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnologue Kukna, [kex], is a Bhil language, not Konkani. (They're confused too. The classify it as southern, but on the map show it as northern. Those are two different dialects that go by the same name.) Glottolog merges Kukna [kex] with Dhodia, a Bhil language. The Indian census results for 'Kukna' are also Bhil, not Konkani. I have therefor moved the article to 'Canarese Konkani', and made 'Kukna' a dab page. Please don't move this article back under the name 'Kukna' unless we first disentangle its various uses. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]