Jump to content

Talk:Dzongkha

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

Bambu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.66.63 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"dialect" of Tibetan

[edit]

I believe we mislead our readers when we describe Dzongkha as a dialect of Tibetan. That would suggest that native speakers of these languages could understand each other which is not true. What is true is that both languages trace back to a common root, Classical Tibetan, which has died out as a spoken language but is still used in religious contexts (much as Latin is no longer anyone's mother tongue but is a common root of the various Romance languages and is preserved as the international scholarly language of Roman Catholicism). I've changed the article to make the actual relationship of Tibetan and Dzongkha clearer. technopilgrim 19:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Although the spoken language is obviously quite different from the varieties of Tibetan as spoken in Tibet, the written language can be pretty much identical in a literary register, or quite different in a more informal one. The problem with Tibetan is whether to refer to its sub-varieties as dialects or languages. A similar problem exists within Chinese, wherein the dialects are even more different from each other than they are in Tibetan, more akin to the difference between English and German than Spanish and Italian, but they're still generally referred to as dialects rather than languages. BovineBeast 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree.(although)I think that the concept of a "Tibetan language" as a modern spoken language is inherently misleading or confused. Tibetan is a classical literary language that has become several distinct local varieties, including Dzongkha. Quite like Latin, as you say. In the case of Tibetan, it seems that some varieties are arbitrarily defined as "dialects of modern spoken Tibetan" (Khams, Amdo, Ü-Tsang, and sometimes the smallish Tibetanoid enclaves of Nepal) while others are arbitrarily defined as separate languages, although none of them are really mutually intelligible. Nevertheless, this is the way they are usually described, so I've attempted to clarify that here and there. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish and Italian are almost mutually intelligible, especially in the written language. Most Portuguese can understand Spanish, although not the other way round. 81.155.100.190 14:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzongkha is a Bodic language as are the several varieties of modern spoken "Tibetan" including Central Tibetan, Khams, and Amdo speech. All of these spoken Bodic languages are prety much mutually incomprehensible in their pure form. There are also several other seperate Bodic languages spoken in Bhutan including Bumthap, Kheng, Kurtop, Nyenkha, Chali and Dzala. Dzongkha is unique amongst all these in having a formal written form - although this was fairly recently developed. Formerlly Clasical Tibetan (known in Bhutan as Choke) was used as the written and liturgical language. Modern Dzongkha differs from Classical Tibetan as much as modern French does from Classical Latin. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please add this

[edit]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002619.html

Chinese claim on Bhutan?

[edit]

Does China really have a territorial claim on Bhutan? That's news to me. Rhesusman 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a nice summary of Sino-Bhutanese border tensions here:[1]. The relationship deteriorated considerably in November 2005 when China sent troops as far as 20 km inside Bhutan where they built roads and several bridges in the districts of Haa, Paro, Bumthang, and Wangdue Phodrang. Reacting to complaints from Thimphu, the Chinese government said the road building was merely a part of the "economic development program for western China". technopilgrim 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to imply that China claims the entire country as part of itself, which to me is different from border tensions and general disrespect for Bhutanese territorial sovereignty. The "economic development program for western China" statement sounds rather ambiguous - it China could be claiming no more than that the roads built through Bhutanese territory somehow are intended to aid economic development in areas it already controls, but it also could imply that China claims Bhutan as a whole as part of its territory. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but this is a rather dramatic claim. Shouldn't it be on the main Bhutan page (if it's not there already - I don't recall seeing it) where it will get more attention? I'm not sure the page about the Dzongkha language is the best place for this statement. Rhesusman 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting on what you've said, I agree. Can you rework it? I hit it with a 10 pound sledge hammer, maybe you can give it a good solid tap instead. Ideally, the reader should come away with some context to understand how Beijing's request to eliminate Dzongkha from Microsoft products fits into the larger picture of Sino-Bhutanese relations. technopilgrim 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get around to it, I've had a busy week. Rhesusman 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about China claiming parts of Bhutan, but just watched Jam-Jam's language videos, and the phonology and vocabulary are so similar to the Chinese languages. The Bhutanese people can easily pass off as Chinese. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:EDA0:4E30:257D:8A41 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

number of speakers?

[edit]

Why is the number of speakers given as only ~1/4 of the population of Bhutan? Potatoswatter 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how many speak it. Like most countries Bhutan has a wide variety of languages spoken in it. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BT -- Al™ 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many more speak the language. While perhaps 30% of the population have Dzongkha as their mother tongue, almost everyone in Bhutan speaks Dzongkha. It is the National Language and lingua-franca of the country; the language of administration and the language of instruction in schools - so everyone learns it. I think the Ethnolouge figure is just an estimate of the number of people who have Dzongkha as their first language or mother tongue. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Fynn is right: "Population gives the number of people in the country for whom this language is a first language, plus the total number of L1 speakers if it is used in multiple countries." (Language Information) So according to the Ethnologue entry, about 1/4 of the population of Bhutan speaks Dzongkha as a first language. Presumably that's why the sidebar says "native speakers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huttarl (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_-more than half of bhutanse speaks nepali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:1803:3293:6CD5:D3E4:C56E:B56C (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define Nepali. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:EDA0:4E30:257D:8A41 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Scout Tshogpa

[edit]

Can someone help render Bhutan Scout Tshogpa, and also "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Dzongkha script? Thanks! Chris 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzongkha language template

[edit]

If you are a native speaker of Dzongkha then you can help translate this template into your own language:

dzoThis user is a native speaker of Dzongkha (རྫོང་ཁ).

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you would want to translate this user box into Dzongkha on English Wikipedia - if it was translated into Dzongkha 99.9% of users couldn't read what the box said - and if they didn't have a Tibetan script font installed they would see garbage. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, language userboxen are in the language they're referring to. See for example,
huEnnek a szerkesztőnek magyar az anyanyelve.
or
zh該用戶的母語是中文。
该用户的母语是中文。
which are total gibberish to me. But non-speakers can find out what the box means by consulting the abbreviation in the picture area, which links to the language page. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Frankly I don't see the point of displaying info-boxes in other languages - especially with text written in non-Latin scripts - on English Wikipedia. Such info boxes are not informative to the majority of users. Why should readers have to click on a link in an info-box to find out what it says? Chris Fynn (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


   The map shows seven districts in which dzongka is spoken.  The text says eight.  Also the map should state that the dzongka districts are highlighted in yellow.
      PeterT2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterT2 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary of the Bhotanta or Boutan language, printed from a manuscript copy made by the late Rev. Frederic Christian Gotthelf Schroeter, edited by J. Marshman: To which is prefixed a grammar of the Bhotanta language By Friedrich Christian G. Schroeter

[edit]

A dictionary of the Bhotanta or Boutan language, printed from a manuscript copy made by the late Rev. Frederic Christian Gotthelf Schroeter, edited by J. Marshman: To which is prefixed a grammar of the Bhotanta language By Friedrich Christian G. Schroeter, John Clark Marshman

http://books.google.com/books?id=z58CAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Friedrich+Christian+G.+Schroeter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HDUeU9-KFZLI0gH58oDICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

A dictionary of the Bhotanta, or Boutan language By Frederic Christian Gotthelf Schrœter

http://books.google.com/books?id=khQTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Frederic+Christian+Gotthelf+Schrœter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RTUeU7irFILr0gGEjYDIBg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Dictionary of the Bhotanta, Or Boutan Language By Friedrich Christian Gotthelf Schroeter, William Carey

http://books.google.com/books?id=XtxGAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Friedrich+Christian+Gotthelf+Schroeter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TjUeU5PwIeXE0gGtmoHoAQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Grammar of the Bhotanta, Or, Boutan Language By Friedrich Christian Gotthelf Schroeter

http://books.google.com/books?id=pBugaEfBgs4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Friedrich+Christian+Gotthelf+Schroeter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TjUeU5PwIeXE0gGtmoHoAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

A DICTIONARY OF THE BHOTANTA LANGUAGE (1826)

https://archive.org/details/adictionarybhot00schogoog

A Grammar of the Bhotanta, Or, Boutan Language By Friedrich Christian Gotthelf Schroeter

http://books.google.com/books?id=pBugaEfBgs4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect phonology

[edit]

Someone appears to have recently added a phonology section to this article, which seems to have been lifted from an article about Tibetan and is all completely wrong in respect of Dzongkha. A reliable description of Dzongkha phonology can be found in George van Driem's book 'Dzongkha' (1998). Unlike Standard Tibetan, Dzongkha contrasts voiced as well as aspirated consonants, and the use of breathy voice after unvoiced consonants. The whole table as it stands is worthless and should be removed. 62.64.241.151 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


--- Yep. I was just looking at the van Driem's 1992 grammar, and it is completely incorrect for what is specified in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.228.4 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dzongkha. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 (Report bug) 07:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dzongkha. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 (Report bug) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Dzongkha. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 (Report bug) 10:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add grammar section?

[edit]

This language article is lacking a grammar section, which may be sourced from material such as van Driem's The Grammar of Dzongkha. How should the grammar section be written (i.e. incrementally or all at once)? The structure would be similar to the Tibetan language article and the Japanese grammar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAlpaca (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "should". If you're willing then please do, whether incrementally or all at once. See WP:BOLD. Nardog (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adap dialect

[edit]

This article doesn't say if the Adap dialect is simply another term for standard Dzongkha. There are 3 dialects with ISO 639-3 codes: Laya and Lunana (which have pages, and are not standard forms), and Adap (whose page is a redirect to this one). Can someone please clarify? --Numberguy6 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dzong 'fortress'

[edit]

Dzongkha literally means 'language of the fortress' and dzong means 'fortress'. The Dzongkha term for 'palace' is 'phodrang'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemongdi (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoneme Inventory

[edit]

The Phoneme inventory in the thesis "A Grammar of Dzongkha (dzo): Phonology, Words, and Simple Clauses" (2018 Watters, Stephen A) seems highly aberrant compared to the one here but is more recent than the current source cited for the current phoneme inventory. This phoneme inventory also explains multiple phonemes that seem to appear elsewhere in the language (at least according to this wikipedia page) such as both the /d/ and /z/ in Dzongkha Comment by user ChromeBones — Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tone determines the voice of the consonants, so if you don't consider that to be phonemic, the inventory doubles. Nardog (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPA notation

[edit]

I'm not sure if the pronunciation is correct. The first consonant should be voiced alveolar affricate /dz/, which can be heard here from a native speaker. Wiktionary also has that notation. Ranching (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Nardog (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Another reference, just in case. Ranching (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Dzongkha grammar into Dzongkha

[edit]

The amount of material here doesn't appear to justify a separate article, as opposed to a section in the main article on the language. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Dzongkha grammar is far from complete, there's still a lot of information that needs to be added. Protegmatic (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but until that happens... – Joe (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge. If the section does eventually grow too long to fit in the article, it can be split off; but there's no reason to have a separate article now. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dzongkha&oldid=1248981827"