Talk:Balti language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

which was written from left to right due to Arabic influence.

But Arabic's written from right to left!

Balti-English / English-Balti Dictionary By R. K. Sprigg[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=lK6AtdrZONUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=a9ksj2XYiDAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=o3Pjk-4ZshMC

00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What WP:PBUH means[edit]

Sajjad Altaf and I have disagreed on what WP:PBUH means. Here is the relevant text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PBUH#Islamic_honorifics:

  • The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article in which case it may be rendered as "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" if necessary.
  • PBUH, or the fuller "peace be upon him", after Muhammad or other Islamic prophets — recommended action is to remove.

The first one means to just call him "Muhammad", not "Holy Prophet Muhammad".

The second one means that both "PBUH" and "peace be upon him" should be removed. It does not mean that the full version is ok. It means that either version should be removed.

Does that make sense? If you do not understand this, and revert my edit again, then I will summon other Wikipedia editors. Neutron Jack (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What WP:PBUH means[edit]

I was referring to PBUH and did not know that Wikipedia's bigotry level against Islam would reach to that level that they will have a special rules page defined to keep muslims away from writing and referring the names of Islamic dignitaries in a most respectable manner.

WP:PBUH is an example of bigotry against Islam and thus should be modified/removed to allow honorifics.

The name of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) should be written in most respected manner and not like an ordinary person.

Just wanted to send my point across. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad Altaf (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is years later, but the English Wikipedia clearly states usually not to give honorifics in most cirucmstances. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Honorific_prefixes WhisperToMe (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

closeness to Classical Tibetan and revival of Tibetan script[edit]

Balti is said to be the closest Tibetan language to Classical Tibetan. There are ongoing efforts by Balts to revive the Tibetan script along with the Persian script.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Rp5cCMHFxQC&pg=PA83&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bngKU739M8i0sQSumIGgBA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2k3mgWCitj0C&pg=PA200&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znkKU9-6HKmM1AG74IHgBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfWXIfbynwYC&pg=PA360&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znkKU9-6HKmM1AG74IHgBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TVNCAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

Pages 86-87

http://books.google.com/books?id=-lZIAAAAMAAJ&q=Balti+language&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dn4KU9aXLunEyQGslIDoBA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBTge

of literary Tibetan, colloquial Tibetan having evolved away from forms retained in contemporary Balti. It is the most extreme westerly extension of the Tibetan- Burman language. Since the Baltis became Muslims more than five centuries ago , ...

Page 132

http://books.google.com/books?id=k8PXAAAAMAAJ&q=Balti+language&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X34KU_ymMvKkyAGZxoH4Bw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCDgU

Balti society is a hydraulic peasant society of oasis villages, based upon intensive irrigation agriculture at altitudes from 7,000 to 1 1,000 feet. The Balti language is an early form of Tibetan. It is in fact, the spoken version of literary Tibetan, ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=DDdjLiITmUQC&pg=PA139&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znkKU9-6HKmM1AG74IHgBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false

Tibetan script

http://books.google.com/books?id=g8DAmULPQU0C&pg=PA180&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znkKU9-6HKmM1AG74IHgBw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=RTy-BYU7SpYC&pg=PA6&dq=Balti+language&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bngKU739M8i0sQSumIGgBA&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Balti%20language&f=false


23:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Balti language sample[edit]

This is written in Balti language in Perso-Arabic script.

St. Matthew (in Balti) (1908)

https://archive.org/details/stmatthewinbalti00brit

05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balti language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot ([[ User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 07:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagri Script[edit]

Is there any better source that can verify that Balti use Devanagri Script? The source provided by Ethnologue.com is not a primary scholarly source, and offers no sources for its assertion. the Ethnologue page even makes reference to this deficiency. In fact, the website says the script has been in use since the 1970s. I did some research, and I think this is the source that ethnologue.com may be using - it is a phonetic reader published by the Central Institute of Indian Languages, 1975. The use of Devanagri in this phonetic reader does not indicate that Balti people themselves use the devanagri script - which is ultimately the question here. The snippets available show that the author himself devised the devanagri script. He wrote:

" Balti has no script of its own for the purpose of writing. An attempt is made here to use both the Perso-Arabic and Devanagari script."

A simple google search for Balti Devanagri shows no citations offer further evidence that Balti use devanagari. Scholarly works on Balti, such as this one mention Tibetan and Arabic script, not Devanagari (they may not have written anything in 1975, but by the mid 2000s its very conceivable that the language was written). It seems that ethnologue.com has based its assertion that Devanagri script has been in use since the 1970s is based on the phonetic reader from 1975 that I mentioned above.

If there is anyone at all who can point to Balti texts in Devanagari, or even a better source that doesnt appear connected the 1975 phonetic reader, I'd be happy to evaluate

Willard84 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "provide a scholarly source",[1] how about[2][3][4]? Capitals00 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


None of those are scholarly:
Regarding your first source: I In fact, I took the liberty to contact Ethnologue, and Lorna Evans (ethnologue editor) there directed me to this article as their source. In it you can see that the ancient script shows some similarity to indian scripts, but is written in the opposite direction. And again, this is an ANCIENT script, not a modern one. And if you'll notice that I was right about the CIIL source from 1975 "An extended form of Devanagari was developed for Balti and related languages by the Central Institute of Indian Languages in the 1970s.2"
Regarding your next source, the book - it says there was an ancient Balti script that was based on Devanagari. That doesnt mean modern Devanagari is used. They likely are referencing the source above that has a script which look indian. The quote from the source above is "… Professors A. Fischer and Hultzeh tell me, it is not based on any form of Arabic character but rather resembles the Indian form of script.”5 We don't add ancient scripts for modern languages. And note above - the ancient script may be similar to devanagari, but it absolutely is not like modern devanagari, and isnt even written in the same direction! So how can you extrapolate that modern devanagari be used to represent an ancient script?
Regarding your last source - surely you'll recall the debate at Talk:Shina language in which its been deemed also by other users that omniglot is not a reliable source. Its self-published, which is clearly listed as a source of questionable value as per the reliability link you provided earlier. Further, I wish you would have read what the omniglot page said"
"A way of writing Balti with the Devanagari alphabet was devised by the Central Institute of Indian Languages in the 1970s."
This is absolutely no way suggest Balti use Devanagari. It only suggests that a script was devised by CIIL! And as I showed above in my first post - this was for a phonetic reader. So this source is neither scholarly, nor does it even support what you claim.
As an example for why omniglot is not reliable:
Balti was written with a version of the Tibetan alphabet from 727 AD, when Baltistan was conquered by Tibetans, until the late 14th century, when the Balti people converted to Islam and started using a version of the Persian alphabet. However the Tibetan alphabet continued to be used until the 17th century, and recently there have been efforts to revive its use by scholars and social activitists. A way of writing Balti with the Devanagari alphabet was devised by the Central Institute of Indian Languages in the 1970s. -Omniglot
which is clearly taken from the source Lorna Evans pointed me to:
The Tibetan script was introduced in the 8th century when the region was brought under Tibetan control.1 The Arabic script replaced the Tibetan in the 17th century as the influence of Islam grew in the region. An extended form of Devanagari was developed for Balti and related languages by the Central Institute of Indian Languages in the 1970s.2 In recent years there have been efforts by Balti speakers to revive usage of the Tibetan script.
-http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2010/10231-n3842-balti.pdf
So Omniglot is not a primary or scholarly source. It basically copied and pasted what was written in another source. Dont believe me? Look at the sources at the bottom of the Omniglot page. The paper I was directed to was cited as a source.Willard84 (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the unreliable sources, there are still some reliable sources that confirms the connection of Devanagari script with Balti. That's the only thing we had to confirm and it is confirmed. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you come up with that conclusion? Firtly, the paper I provided says it resembles an "indian looking" script to emphasize its difference from perso-arabic.
"Professors A. Fischer and Hultzeh tell me, it is not based on any form of Arabic character but rather resembles the Indian form of script.”"
That says nothing about devanagari. In fact, the paper goes on to show why its different from Devanagari. And the paper is talking about an ancient script which is no longer used.
Even the book you provided mentions an ancient script. And did you notice the citation that the book provided? The Husanabadi 1990 reference? You can see here it was "privately published" which means that it is Self Published. Remember, self-published articles are not reliable. So the book cites an unreliable source, which then compromises the reliability of the book itself! So even this book isnt reliable.
Your sources are unreliable or based on unreliable sources, and seem to reference an ancient Balti script. You've thus confirmed nothing to demonstrate convincingly that the Balti use any modern writing system based on Devanagari. Willard84 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point is it is not even controversial. "There is no official script for Balti."[5] Walter de Gruyter is an academic publisher. There has been an entire book that finds devanagari script being used.[6] Yes it is published by CCIIL but so far it is one of most significant literature on this language available. You have tagged here[7], you can read [8] Capitals00 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84, Wikipedia follows two policies, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Ethnologue is cited throughout Wikipedia on language articles and it clearly states with regard to Balti, that the "Devanagari script [Deva], used since the 1970s", which is what this article states. Remember that Wikipedia is not the truth. Rather, it reflects what reliable sources state. In addition, the text "Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology" IS NOT a self-published source. Rather, it is published by an academic press, Walter de Gruyter, and the source says that Balti was written in a "Devanagari based script" as evidenced in "ancient records", you can't make a conclusion like "no more used". These sources undergo peer review and your claims that the information presented therein is false have been dismissed--the fact that Devanagari (or a script related to it) was used in antiquity, and Devanagari is still used in India to write the language is all the more reason why it belongs in the lead. Remember, out of all the scripts in the lead, Devanagari is being listed after all the scripts, giving preference to four other scripts before it! I am also noting that your claims that you personally contacted individuals at Ethnologue, etc. do not meet the threshold for analyzing the content of Wikipedia. Why should we think that two linguists would make false claims in a book published by a reputable Western academic press? Your drive of removing remove Devanagari from various article you come across should be stopped already. before it becomes a conduct issue. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UT,

I have no idea how you keep pointing to sources that mention proposals as indication of actual use. Did you read page 93 of your source [6] - "An attempt is made to use Perso-Arabic and Devanagari." An attempt. Attempt. This doesnt indicate that devanagari is used. How you've mischaracterized this book as one indication of actual use is baffling. And did you realize that you're pointing the 1975 Phonetic reader that was given to me by the editor at Ethnologue? You've literally quoted again the source that has already been shown to be one that offers just a proposal.
And we literally just showed you on Talk:Shina language that Ethnologue is NOT a reliable source. How have you forgotten this so quickly? Because its shocking to see you point to it here as some sort of reliable source!
And you've completed ignored what was addressed about the book you cited. I didnt say the book you yourself pointed to was self-published - I said the source THEY USED in the book is self-published. I clearly explained this above. And the ancient script refernced is in the paper that i showed above. It was described as a script which looks to be "Indian," but which very clearly expresses major differences. The same source mentions that it was an ancient script, and is being studied because it is a orthographic artifact. That means it isn't used. Your blurb in a book mentions an ANCIENT script based on Devanagari (again referencing the "indian looking" script I mentioned). An ANCIENT script. This by definition means "not modern." And its quite revealing that your source itself quotes a self-published source, so your book is not reliable.
And the position of Devanagari is completely irrelevant because 1) No reliable source shows it is is use 2) its not even clear the ancient script was ever based on devanagari. As mentioned on the Shina page, scripts in Pakistan as by default nastaliq, and the use od devanagari requires an extraordinarily strong source to back up that assertion. None of which you provided. Because for the umpteenth time, The book you cite itself references a self published article, and is thus not reliable itself. And dont threaten me for your illogic. It reflects poorly on you alone. Pinging @Uanfala:, @RegentsPark: who were the last users to comment on the Shina page and are already familiar with this sort of debate.Willard84 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And previously you were doubting the wording of the source and then you went on to call a reliable source unreliable? You don't even know the publisherand as long as the content has been recognized by the academic publisher, we need to stick to that. Even if we believe your claim, then still it is contrary to the policy, because "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". The source has provided also correct information, which matches our article, there can be no disagreement in saying that Walter de Gruyter is a high quality source. Capitals00 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perso-Arabic script, Devanagari script, and the Tibetan script should appear in the introduction of the article. These are all sourced to Ethnologue, a reliable source and language authority used throughout Wikipedia (in articles and infoboxes). Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the comments at Talk:Shina language where it was pointed out that ethnologue isn't a reliable source by User:Kautilya3. This was listed above as well. And even so, note the comment above where ethnologue editor Lorna Evans sent me the source used. The paper doesn't specifically mention Devanagari script, but rather a script which resembles an Indian one (without mentioning Devanagari as the basis for that script- and instead demonstrating its differences from Devanagari.Willard84 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Willard84, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument - the Shina language has no bearing on Balti as both belong to different language families and are spoken by different ethnic groups. The source authored by Saxena and and Borin is not self-published as you allege. It is published by an academic press and states that a Devanagari-based script has been used since ancient times. Capitals00 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting:
    • Large parts of the article's section on the script is a copy of http://koshur.org/Linguistic/7.html. It was first added in 2007 [9], while the source website has had it for longer [10]. It should probably be removed as a copyright violation.
    • Ethnologue is usually reliable and is cited so often because of its convenience and easy availability. It is not always reliable though and so should never be used as an arbiter in contentious matters. Also, as with other tertiary sources, we should ideally access directly the sources that ethnologue editors have accessed and use them to write a more detailed and more nuanced treatment than the inevitably brief text that ethnologue provides.
    • Ditto for Tariq Rahman's aricle in Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: there Balti is an entry in an enormous table almost entirely based on ethnologue. As this seems to be an object of controversy here, I should note that the paper itself is a reliable source, but any specific bit of information in this particular table isn't – it's provided as a broad overview of the state of affairs and particular details are unlikely to have been scrutinised by the author or the reviewers. Also noting that sources that are reliable in one discipline (language documention) might not necessarily be reliable when they make passing mentions related to another discipline (palaeography).
    • If any of the two old scripts from the Unicode proposal linked above have been described as "Devanagari-based" then we need a proper source, we can't go for ethnologue's implicit judgement.
    • I haven't had a look at the CIIL phonetic reader that proposes a Devanagari scheme. Does it give an indication that it has been adopted? If yes, then it can be added to the infobox.
    • Infoboxes should generally only list the scripts that are, or have been, used to a significant extent. From what I've seen so far, these are Perso-Arabic and Tibetan. But given the complexity of the picture – two obscure scripts used in the past and additional proposals for Roman or Devanagari systems, I think the suggestion makes sense that Capitals00 made on another article's talk page for adding "others" after the list of scripts. – Uanfala 10:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There's no such thing as an ancient, devanagari-based alphabet, because devanagari is a modern script.
  • Ethnologue does not generally cite their info. They're getting better, but they didn't intend to be a scholarly source, just a guide for who needed scripture. There's lots and lots of stuff in Ethn. that's very wrong. If there's reason to doubt Ethn, then we need to WP:VERIFY that they're correct. The claim that we just parrot anything that's out there - no, we don't. If scholarly consensus is wrong, then we'll be wrong too, because we do base ourselves on scholarly consensus. But Ethn. is not scholarly consensus. When we have reason to believe Ethn. is wrong, we go to other sources. For example, we abandoned population estimates for the larger languages of the world and use the Swedish encyclopedia instead, because we concluded that Ethn. figures are not reliable.
  • I see no reason to believe that there's any significant use of devanagari to write Balti. It should therefore be removed from the info box unless someone comes up with documentation of its use. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, English is written in futhorc, cirth, tengwar, shavian, Pitman shorthand and Gregg shorthand, but somehow none of them are listed in the info box of English language. English (or at least English words) are also written in Chinese characters in Hongkong, and I've seen it in Japanese kana, but those aren't in the info box either. As said several times above, scripts in the box are those that are in significant use. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a "tempest in a teapot" and it seems to me odd that Willard84 would actually go and contact Ethnologue just to ask them if their article is correct. The academic source provided by Capitals00 clearly states that a Devanagari based script was used to write Balti. Willard84's own source states that the Balti script "resembles the Indian form of script". Would Willard84 object if we added that in the article, from the source they provided? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not hard to contact Ethnologue. I have no problem with the mention that the ancient balti script "resembles the Indian form of script" outside of the lead paragraph. And as long as it is not used as justification to include Devanagari in the lead sentence. It would also be honest to note the differences between the script and Indic ones - namely that the script is written left to right, rather than right to left, as also mentioned in the source. This is a key bit of information that shouldn't be overlooked - or else readers may presume the script was based on Devanagari, which has not been established.Willard84 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can't include a script in the infobox because there's no indication it is in use, then we also shouldn't include an orthographic representation using this script in the first sentence of the article. If anything, the bar there is higher than for the infobox. – Uanfala 10:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this can be removed from the first sentence, a source says that "One school of thought is of the view that only Hindi is best suited for the writing of Balti language, while the other prefers Roman script."[11] Should we consider a mention on lead? Capitals00 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such theories are not accepted among the Balti themselves. Therefore it would be inappropriate to include this so prominently in the lead. I was going to suggest it go into the script section, but theres already mention of a proposed Devanagari script. If its found out who this school of thought is, it could be tagged onto the sentence that already mentions Devanagari.Willard84 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is just a proposal, and we've already covered it in the Scripts section. And apart from this mention, the book unfortunately doesn't give any further details. Interestingly, though published in 1988 it was written in the early 70s so there's a possibility that the "Hindi" proposal might predate the 1975 phonetic reader. – Uanfala 09:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First book on Balti?[edit]

"He wrote the book 'Balti Zabaan' in 1990, the first book on the language."

"Balti Grammar" by A.F.C. Read is of 1934, see WorldCat

There is also the Balti vocabulary in G.T. Vigne "Travels in Kashmir..." of 1842, see WorldCat This is not a complete book on Balti, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Ingmardb (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this up. I've removed the whole section as it was promotional. The books mentioned could easily be readded into the bibliography. – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Population figures are outdated according to Ethnologue (2018) there are 438,800 Speakers of Balti language (425,000 in Pakistan and 13,800 in India) same is the case with Article: Balti people. (ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

You need to check which edition of Ethnologue you are using, and fill it in in the ref= field. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chi hal yot[edit]

Chi hal yot 103.137.24.47 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Assalam walikum 119.152.230.227 (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Che hal yot[edit]

ga wangyo 59.103.23.138 (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balti_language&oldid=1216174959"