Talk:Burmese language: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
→‎move mess: new section
m NinjaRobotPirate moved page Template talk:Myanmar language to Talk:Burmese language over a redirect without leaving a redirect: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM)
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:39, 3 March 2024

Displaying Burmese script in Firefox v3.6.13 on Windows XP

I spent significant time trying to get Burmese script to display, and finally seem to have it working as per my comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Multilingual_support_%28Indic%29#Windows_XP - Hopefully this might save at least one other person the hours I spent trying to get it working. A quick check shows that it seems to now also display in IE8 and Opera 10, which it didn't before. I'm using XP Pro SP3. UnRheal (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


IPA transcriptions

Is there any reason that [N] has been systematically changed to [ɴ] in the page? Also why is voiceless [l] written [ɬ]? The benevolent dictator (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a misunderstanding about [N] versus [ɴ] 2 years ago (discussion here). Then last year Kwami and Angr came to a different conclusion in a fuller discussion on the latter’s talk page. (This issue seems to come up once a year, always in May.) As for [ɬ], I don’t find any occurrences in the current article. But is the sound not lateral in Burmese? Were you expecting [l̥] as I’ve seen for Tibetan? MJ (t • c) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that as well. So, apparently there are reasons to not simply transcribe this phonetically as [ã] etc; regardless, the numerous instances of [aɴ] that appear even before the phonology section seem confusing. If it were /aɴ/ I would expect a placeless nasal, but explicit phonetic brackets certainly suggest an uvular nasal. So: is there any particular reason why the article uses phonetic rather than phonemic transcription thruout?
(Moreover: is there any particular reason why /ɴ/ has been analyzed as an independant segment, rather than as an archiphoneme or vowel nasalization?) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/ɴ/ is analyzed as an independent segment rather than as an archiphoneme or vowel nasalization because it behaves phonologically like an independent segment. There are at least two ways in which syllables ending in /ʔ/ and syllables ending in /ɴ/ pattern together: (1) diphthongs may occur only in syllables ending in /ʔ/ or /ɴ/; (2) high vowels are laxed in syllables ending in /ʔ/ or /ɴ/. These facts can only be captured as generalizations if /ʔ/ and /ɴ/ are treated as consonant segments that form a syllable coda, entailing that syllables ending in either of these sounds are closed syllables. If [ã] were treated as /ã/ etc., nasal syllables would have to be considered open syllables, and the generalization would be lost. And even at the phonetic level, there does seem to be some sort of tongue movement at the end of nasal syllables: after the monophthongs, the tongue tip approaches (but does not touch) the alveolar ridge, while after the diphthongs the tongue back approaches (but does not touch) the velum. In the latter case, the sound could be transcribed [ɰ̃]. Moreover, before a buccal consonant, /ɴ/ is realized as a real, full nasal consonant (in addition to the nasalization on the preceding vowel). In this article, [ɴ] is used in broad phonetic transcriptions to make the relationship between the surface phonetics and the phonemics more transparent (unless the precise realization of /ɴ/ happens to be the topic of discussion) and to make the transcriptions easier to read (since all nasal syllables carry tone, the vowel sign would have to carry two diacritics, one for nasalization and one for tone: writing [ɴ] makes reading and writing the transcriptions that much easier). Angr (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial vowels?

Our description does not permit word-initial vowels in Burmese, but some words written with an initial vowel were transcribed with a glottal stop, and some were not. Just wanted to check that they should all have the stop. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all apparently vowel-initial words in Burmese are actually glottal stop-initial, even if not transcribed that way. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary

At the vocabulary section, it says 'ရုပ်မြင်သံကြား' is direct translation of 'Television'. I don't think it is correct because 'ရုပ်မြင်သံကြား' is 'Vision'+'Audio' but 'Television' sounds 'Distance communication'+'Vision'. I would like to change another accurate sample word. Any objection? 111.84.193.245 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adoniram Judson's Burmese English Learning materials

Most of these works are by Adoniram Judson.

English Burmese dictionaries (to help Burmese speaking people learn English)

Burmese english Dictionaries (to help English speaking people learn Burmese)

Grammars of Burmese

A burmese reader

Vocabulary and phrase book in English and Burmese

Elementary hand-book of the Burmese language (1898)

Burmese self-taught (in Burmese and Roman characters) with phonetic pronunciation. (Thimm's system.) (1911)

The Anglo-Burmese student's assistant. Consisting of grammatical notes with numerous examples and analysis of sentences (1877)

Bible

A catalogue of the Burmese books in the British Museum (1913)

History of Western Studies of the Burmese language

Rajmaan (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a couple at Wikisource, see s:Portal:Languages and literatures of Eastern Asia#Burmese. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

□□□□□□□

How can I change □□□□ this letter? Although I downloaded padauk font and other letters are seen properly. But many letters still have square figures only. Is there any option users like me can do? ㅠㅠ --Mar del Este (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are supposed to be white squares. You've written the Unicode point U+25A1 WHITE SQUARE every time. Angr (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(See the most recent section on his talk page for our discussion of this in April.) MJ (t • c) 01:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mon

Mon was incorrectly stated to be an Austronesian language. Changed it to Austroasiatic. Goderich (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Angr (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up about register

In § Registers, ¶3 begins

In the mid-1960s, some Burmese writers, who asserted that the vernacular, spoken form ought to be used, spearheaded efforts to abandon the literary form, which was historically the preferred form of written Burmese, as "the spoken style lacks gravity, authority, dignity."

It's easy to misread this long ramble as saying that the quoted sentence was the writers' assertion, rather than the position they were arguing against. I'm splitting it into two sentences in chronological order:

Historically the literary register was preferred for written Burmese on the grounds that "the spoken style lacks gravity, authority, dignity". In the mid-1960s some Burmese writers spearheaded efforts to abandon the literary form, asserting that the spoken vernacular ought to be used for writing as well.

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the Registers topic, the subject of the sample sentences that show the differences between literary and spoken Burmese is so negative. I would like to change something positive. Yarzaryeni (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamThweatt

WilliamThweatt Given recent scholarship has challenged the Mon origin of the Burmese script, let's just leave origins out of the lede, which is a summary. We can talk about different scholarly stances elsewhere. Ogress smash! 06:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say "recent scholarship", you're going to need to provide a source so we can determine weight. Do a quick google scholar search and you'll see the consensus is that Burmese writing is derived from Mon. It will take multiple reliable sources to overturn the existing consensus.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamThweatt Actually, the alphabet page says in the lede, "It is an adaptation of the Old Mon script[2] or the Pyu script." The cite for Pyu is missing here but present in the side panel: Aung-Thwin (2005) The Mists of Ramañña: 167–178, 197–200. Google brings me as its first two hits that Burmese and Mon are cousins, once thought to be Mon > Burmese but disputed in recent scholarship in Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier. 6 April 2010. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-08-087775-4., an even more strong version of that with a note that Burmese scripts samples have been found before any attested Mon forms in Bernard Comrie (13 January 2009). The World's Major Languages. Routledge. p. 725. ISBN 978-1-134-26156-7..
All we can say for sure right now is that they are closely related and derived from a Pallava script, so perhaps in the lede we don't need undue weight. It's about the Burmese language, it's hardly going to cause harm to just skip immediate origin and given that it's the lede and not the alphabet page, I think it'd be distracting to talk in any detail - like "some scholars think it is derived from Mon" or w/e seems unnecessary. As for the alphabet page, it already lists two possible origins. That cite in the alphabet lede should go elsewhere, as cites in lead are not ideal. I'll take a look at where both cites should go, because I'm sure there's a section in the article where they already belong (cites in the side board like that are also not ideal and are usually just for census info and things like that).
I don't have a strong feeling that one side is right, although admittedly the "new" evidence is always interesting because it's new. Despite the fact that many sources still state "Mon > Burmese", I think three scholarly sources is enough to show that it's no longer lede material to state a clear origin. And anyway what's really useful is that it's a Pallava descendant. Ogress smash! 07:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burmese 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, 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) 00:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Burmese 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: 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) 18:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burmese 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: 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) 23:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burmese 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: 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) 05:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WISIWYG or WYSIWYG?

In the second paragraph of the section "Computer fonts and standard keyboard layout", there is this acronym WISIWYG. Should it be WYSIWYG? 無聲 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly should. Change made. MJ (t • c) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode characters

I want to ask if this entry has any policy on using Unicode characters. It appears that this edit used non-Unicode characters: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burmese_language&diff=896604230&oldid=894802900

@1.46.107.56: If it is recommended to consistently use Unicode, the author might want to change it. If the original code is Zawgyi-One, I found this converter (developed by Myanmar Computer Federation) very useful: http://www.mcf.org.mm/myanmar-unicode-converter

Punnani Katabbani (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar Language Native to Bangladesh?

I'm so confused why wiki show Myanmar language to Bangladesh. As I know, no one in Bangladesh speaking any of Myanmar language. I want to know why and how wiki reference like this? 1.46.152.159 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be called Myanmar Language?

If the constitution of Myanmar requests that the English language name of the language to be Myanmar Language, do we want to change the name of the page and the way that it is referred to throughout the article? Ellacution (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what the most common name in English-language sources actually is, not what the Constitution of Myanmar requests. I think Burmese is still the most common name of the language in English, though that could be changing. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The case system

Currently the article isn’t clear on whether the “Subject”, “Object”, and “Recipient” cases are in fact nominative, accusative, and dative cases. I’m not feeling bold at the monent. Also, it’s unclear whether the “Possessive” case is analogous to English’s possessive, or if functions as a full genitive case like in many other languages.

Now, as it happens, I do know multiple native speakers who could clarify this, but I feel it falls in a gray area as to whether it’s substantive enough to prevent the use of OR. (Although, technically I could just publish the transcripts or results of such a conversation with my Burmese acquaintances somewhere online and then cite it…)

Obviously RS exist but I should have been in bed already and I’ve had a long day.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 103.217.159.195 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription & names

I’ve semi-reverted a couple of recent changes which have reintroduced the ɴ character to IPA transcriptions. This is not (as far as I can tell) part of any standard apart from an informal one previously used by some Wikipedia editors. If that’s its origin then it’s original research and shouldn’t be used.

I think it’s been made pretty clear by Burmese speakers that Myanmar/Mranma is pronounced /mjəmà/ so we should stop sticking an ɴ in it, phonemic or not.

An anonymous user recently shortened and corrected the language name, but only in the infobox. I’ve used this shorter form in both since it is a more general term for spoken and written language. The transcription had /ð/ which I’ve changed to /θ/ based on the article (“[ð]…is not itself a phoneme”).

I also reverted the link to Mon-Burmese Script to its straightforward title.

I note someone has also changed the Ethnicity in the infobox from Bamar people to Burmese people, presumably with some political agenda. Languages don’t necessarily have ethnicities, but if this can of worms needs to be here, then I suppose that should be reverted as well. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 07:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

move mess

Could you move this page back to Burmese language? An editor is trying to pull off an undiscussed move against consensus, and is presently making a mess in the process. Remsense诉 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burmese_language&oldid=1211646028"