Talk:ང

ང

@Lo Ximiendo Hi. I was wondering where you got the orthography for Sikkimese from - I didn't seem to have much luck finding material for written Sikkimese online. Thanks! Wyang (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Repinging @Lo Ximiendo in case the first one didn't work. Also other entries in Category:Sikkimese lemmas. Wyang (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Omniglot has a page for it [1]. Some other search terms to try are "Bhutia" and "Denzongpa". There's a few Sikkimese dictionaries in print, and maybe some online? Ugen Lopsang Sherpa, the author of "Prajna Dictionary" (a English-Sikkimese-Nepali-Sherpa-Tibetan dictionary) seems to have a Facebook, he may have some materials. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora The only dictionary I could find at present is Pintso Bhutia's Bhutia-English Dictionary, but its spelling is basically Classical Tibetan-based, and “five” is written as ལྔ (lnga) (pg. 37), not ང (nga) (pg. 35). The native name for Sikkimese on the Omniglot page is also in Classical Tibetan: འབྲས་ལྗོངས་སྐད ('bras ljongs skad) (now created). With regard to Mr. Sherpa, as far as I can see, his Tibetan-script posts on Facebook are in Classical Tibetan. There is even this post which has the line

རྒྱལ་བསྟན་ལྔ་བརྒྱའི་ […] ― rgyal bstan lnga brgya'i Unsupported titles/`lsqb` … Unsupported titles/`rsqb` ― of five hundred teachings […]

@Lo Ximiendo Could you please let us know where you found the spelling? If it cannot be verified, it may have to be deleted. Wyang (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: Great find! I found at least three more dictionaries in the Sikkim state government's budget records. They all seem to be only in print however. And about the Facebook, I was wondering about that as well. Since Sikkimese is no doubt an LDL, the one dictionary should be a valid source, right? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora Yeah I agree it is an LDL. So, as long as the word can be found in some dictionary... Wyang (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I found that spelling here. I am not familiar with the site, so I don't vouch for it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, that site is a mirror of Wiktionary. Please try to check this before linking. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how you recognized that. It did not look like Wiktionary to me. Just to be sure, I looked at it again, and I saw nothing there that suggested Wiktionary to me. If you're certain it is a mirror of Wiktionary, then all I can say is that in the future you should avoid clicking on any links that I offer. Another site uses ལྔ (lnga) for 5, but gives the pronunciation as "Nga". —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: If you look at the Tibetan section on that site, it has the same pronunciation template as {{bo-pron}}. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora:, apparently we are not looking at the same thing. I see:

Tibetan - Pronunciation

Ü-Tsang

(Lhasa) IPA(key): /ŋa¹³/

(Spiti) IPA(key): /ŋá/

Khams

(Batang) IPA(key): /ŋa²³¹/

(Dege) IPA(key): /ŋa¹³/

Amdo

(Zeku) IPA(key): /ŋa/

(Bla-Brang) IPA(key): /ŋa/

I don't see anything like that in {{bo-pron}}. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Perhaps I wasn't clear, if you go to the Tibetan section of this entry and expand the pronunciation section, it is the exact same as the one on that site. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora:, that's not what I see. In my previous comment, I included the pronunciation section from that site, all ten lines of it. The following is the pronunciation section from this entry, only eight lines, and very different:

Pronunciation

Old Tibetan: /*ŋa/

Lhasa: /ŋa˩˧/

Batang: /ŋa˨˧˩/

Dêgê: /ŋa˩˧/

Zêkog: /ŋa/

Bla-Brang: /ŋa/

Lahuli–Spiti: /ŋá/

Maybe it has something to do with our browsers or devices. I only use Firefox and a Microsoft-based laptop. I never use a smartphone or a tablet on the internet. I really don't see how that could cause the differences between what you describe and what I see, but it's all I can think of. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I found some more text from our entry. It was collapsed for some reason. I have not seen a semi-collapsed pronunciation section on Wiktionary before this. Nevertheless, that's 21 lines from our entry vs. 10 lines from the other site. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Old Tibetan:

IPA(key): /*ŋa/ (reconstructed)

Ü-Tsang

Tibetan Pinyin: ngav

(Lhasa) IPA(key): /ŋa˩˧/

Khams

(Batang) IPA(key): /ŋa˨˧˩/

(Dêgê) IPA(key): /ŋa˩˧/

Amdo

(Zêkog) IPA(key): /ŋa/

(Bla-Brang) IPA(key): /ŋa/

Lahuli–Spiti

(Spiti) IPA(key): /ŋá/

@Stephen G. Brown: That's what I meant :) Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Sanskrit all use collapsed pronunciation templates btw. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What that site has archived is our old revision of this word in 2016; see diff. Wyang (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–October 2017

See Category talk:Sikkimese lemmas#RFV discussion: August–October 2017.