Talk:Old Hindi
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
References
[edit]Hi @Austronesier:. I noticed you removed the reference to the Richard Delacy and Shahara Ahmed book. I don’t believe that’s a poor source because Delacy is a major scholar in Hindi-Urdu. This article is in need of references and details, so the Delacy and Ahmed book helps in that regard. Foreverknowledge (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Foreverknowledge on this. The reference should not have been deleted from the article, in my humble opinion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Foreverknowledge and Anupam: The Lonely Planet phrasebook is obviously not an apt source for the history of Hindu–Urdu (Hindustani). The publisher were certainly lucky enough to get an academic expert for the Hindu–Urdu part, who btw is not specialized in the history of early NIA languages[1]. But still, it is just a phrasebook which gives some background information in its introduction, nothing more. So next to Shapiro's chapter in a specialzed volume that presents in-depth discussions of Indo-Aryan of all stages (OIA, MIA, NIA), the phrasebook is a poor source. It's not that we're lacking in good academic sources about the history of one of the world's major languages. If I add citations of apt sources by Kachru, Rahman, Cardona etc., will you still see the need to guide our readers to this topic based on information from a phrasebook? –Austronesier (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment User:Austronesier. Would the sources that you're adding in discuss the development from Old Hindi to Hindustani through the infusion of Persian loanwords? I would certainly welcome the expansion of this article. I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Foreverknowledge and Anupam: The Lonely Planet phrasebook is obviously not an apt source for the history of Hindu–Urdu (Hindustani). The publisher were certainly lucky enough to get an academic expert for the Hindu–Urdu part, who btw is not specialized in the history of early NIA languages[1]. But still, it is just a phrasebook which gives some background information in its introduction, nothing more. So next to Shapiro's chapter in a specialzed volume that presents in-depth discussions of Indo-Aryan of all stages (OIA, MIA, NIA), the phrasebook is a poor source. It's not that we're lacking in good academic sources about the history of one of the world's major languages. If I add citations of apt sources by Kachru, Rahman, Cardona etc., will you still see the need to guide our readers to this topic based on information from a phrasebook? –Austronesier (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Greek translation incredibly broken.
[edit]I switched the page's language to other languages to see if there was more information if I could Google Translate it into English.
When I switched to Greek, the whole page becomes a massive picture of Hitler. ?????? What, how and why?
Can someone please fix this. Taiyaki Schizo (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)