Talk:Vyākaraṇa: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Htahpoahf - "" |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
...does Bhartrihari, the Sanskrit Grammarian's, page redirect here? [[User:Alinovic|Alinovic]] ([[User talk:Alinovic|talk]]) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
...does Bhartrihari, the Sanskrit Grammarian's, page redirect here? [[User:Alinovic|Alinovic]] ([[User talk:Alinovic|talk]]) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
Why does linguistics in India date back so far yet no Indian person today knows jack crap about it? Over a billion people and they couldn't even find one to tell them that the initial consonant in "Khan" is not from the epiglottis, but from the uvula. That is shameful. I know that Indians know nothing about linguistics because my mother is Indian and she didn't even know what it was until I told her I was taking a course called "Intro to Linguistics" in university. How did literature on grammar develop without linguistics, do Indian people think about these things at all? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Htahpoahf|Htahpoahf]] ([[User talk:Htahpoahf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Htahpoahf|contribs]]) 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Move discussion in progress== |
==Move discussion in progress== |
||
Revision as of 02:55, 23 February 2010
 | India Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Article title, merge, move, redirect??
Just thinking aloud. The merge proposal on Aindra school of grammar got me thinking. There are few problems with calling this article "Vyakarana". Vyakarana simply just translates to grammar and it is a tatsama in several languages other than Sanskrit. For example Kannada grammar is also called vyakarana. But the article about Kannada grammar(its still part of Kannada language I think) isnt called "vyakarana".
So, I was first tempted to just move this article to "Sanskrit grammar". But then Sanskrit grammar already exists. Also the scope of this article seems to be different from "Sanskrit grammar". Is Schools of Sanskrit grammar a better choice, then? Evidently, this article is not just about "Schools of Skt., grammar", though I feel it can be rewritten and moulded to fit such a title. Or can we cleanup Sanskrit grammar and make room for some of the contents from here. And the rest of the contents, we try to find place for somewhere else? Please add you thoughts. Sarvagnya 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
oops.. i just realised that I had myself created Schools of Sanskrit grammar and that has a merge tag too. hmm.. let me think through this more. In the meanwhile, hope we can get some views in here. Sarvagnya 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically, one of my points here is that, this article should have an English title to help define better the scope of the article. Sarvagnya 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why??!
...does Bhartrihari, the Sanskrit Grammarian's, page redirect here? Alinovic (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Daśāvatāra which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)