Talk:Ja (Indic)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ja (Indic) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ña (Indic)#Tai Tham Ña]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Meaning of Correspondence

@Vanisaac: In the subsection on Thai, what is the intended meaning of "Cho chang corresponds to the Sanskrit character 'ज'"? Does it mean one of the following:

Cho chang corresponds to the Devanagari character 'ज' in the writing of Sanskrit?
Cho chang corresponds to the Devanagari character 'ज' in the writing of words of Sanskrit origin?
Both of the above?
Something else?

The facts can get complicated in some cases. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intended Order of Sections

@Vanisaac:Is there an intended order of sections? --RichardW57 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The commented out headings in Tha (Indic) onwards imply a partial ordering:

Gurmukhi, Tamil, Kannada, Sinhala, Thai, Lao, Tibetan, Burmese, Khmer, Philippine, Tagbanwa, Lontara, Balinese, Sundanese, Limbu, Tai Le, New Tai Lue, Lepcha, Saurashtra, Rejang, Cham, Tai Viet.

The best I can work out for all the scripts that appear, assuming that extant sections other than those for Khmer and Tai Tham that I have inserted are usually in the correct order, is:

Historic, Devanagari, Bengali, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Javanese, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada. Malayalam, Syllabics, Sinhala, Thai, Lao, Odia, Tibetan, Burmese, and then as above.

I have been putting Tai Tham immediately before New Tai Lue.

However, agreement is not perfect. Gurmukhi and then Gujarati would fit just as well. Burmese precedes Thai twice (Ṅa and Ṭa) with no cases the other way round. Odia precedes Telugu for Kha. Thai precedes Javanese and Malayalam for Ṅa, Ca, Ja nad Ta, but Malayalam precedes Thai for Ga, Gha, Cha and Jha.

We have the entry sequence Odia, Tibetan, Gurmukhi for Ḍha, Dha and Bha, but Tibetan comes some way after Gurmukhi for Kha.

Short answer: No, there is no intended order of sections. There is a bias towards better known and more complex scripts being higher on the page, but that is an artifact of the page sections being created in an order informed by factors like pre-existing letter and conjunct images already uploaded to commons, availability of high-quality fonts for creating those images, and whether the structure of the script is interesting enough to merit putting in the legwork to upload supporting content. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanisaac: In that case, I am inclined to follow the order of the section on encoding, so anyone who dives into the series as a reference work has only one arrangement to memorise. Presumably rearrangement should be in separate edits to changes of content. Long contents lists are irritating to read through in detail. Now, some people may read the article from start to finish. For them, it may then be better to move the Khmer family to before the Myanmar family, because Thai, which is put in the Khmer family, has heavily influenced the Tai Tham script and seems to have both old and recent influences on the Shan varieties of the Burmese script. (The 'old' might in fact be a recent influence via Tai Tham, the writing system of the 'Shan' system of Kengtung - I need to check the history.) --RichardW57 (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanisaac: Actually, the 'historic scripts' should still come first. There's a definite tension between the present and history - it seems natural to keep the original ISCII-encoded scripts at the beginning of the encoding section. I think L1½ headers to group scripts would be useful - but I see no way of implementing them. I don't want to demote the scripts to L3, and I certainly don't want the letters to drop out of the table of contents. --RichardW57 (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmukhi subscript

Unicode proposal document [Changes to Gurmukhi 2 L2/05-167] asserts the existence of the subscript and even proposes a name for it. We can say that the subscript is obsolete, but we can only deny its existence if this proposal is wrong. The denial of its existence was added by @Kutchkutch, who may have relevant sources. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]