Hello, Frandis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
Getting started
|
|
|
Getting help
|
|
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
|
The community
|
|
Writing articles
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
This is what someone commented on my paragraphs.
Hi, I recently added two paragraphs on the characteristics of the Brahmi script. However, I noticed that you just took out everything I wrote. I read your comment "redundant and incorrect." I tried to avoid repeating what was already on there. But if I made that mistake, I apologize. But, everything I wrote was based on the information I got from the books on the Brahmi script. I did not use any Internet sources. Also, I am doing this for my school project. We are supposed to choose a writing system and update Wikipedia web-page on that writing system. I admit I don't have much knowledge about the Brahmi script, but I will be doing some research on it, and I will try to do my best to put up accurate information. But so as not to make the same kind of mistake you pointed out to me, could you tell me what parts of my writing were not accurate or redundant? Could you also recommend to me what features of the Brahmi script I should try to concentrate on? I would appreciate your sincere suggestions so my writings will not be deleted again. I look forward to your response. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frandis (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand what the "Cornell edits" that people have been talking about are. I'm deleting your address so you don't get too much junk mail, and will answer you here. Since your two paragraphs pretty much stand by themselves, I'll review them out of context, which maybe isn't fair to you.
Okay, first, formatting. There's no need to use page breaks. Just double return for a paragraph.
"The unique feature of the Brāhmī script is that there is no difference between the spoken and the written form." We can't know that's true, since our knowledge of the language is filtered through the script. However, assuming it is approximately true (it is never more than approximately true for any script—why else do you think people feel obliged to use emoticons?), it's hardly unique. I assume you mean that there's one letter for every sound, and vice versa? That's the case for most well designed phonemic scripts, and is nothing unusual for Brāhmi.
"The Brhami script consists of a full set of vowels and consonants." What makes a set "full"? This doesn't convey anything meaningful to me.
"The structure of the language is based on the vowel-consonant order." You mean the structure of the script. Brāhmi is not a language.
"The vowels may be sorted into four different classes which are 1) short, 2) long, 3) guna, and 4) vrddhi." Use English. If you need to use a foreign word because there is no English translation, then explain what it means. Also, you don't explain how this is relevant to the "vowel-consonant order". If it's not relevant, then you need to explain what the vowel-consonant order means in the previous sentence.
"The consonants carry the inherent a, and make up five classes of twenty-five mutes." You never explain what "mutes" are. Actually, the word is pretty much obsolete. And no-one says "hard consonant" and "soft consonant".
"The consonants consist of ..." You mean the other consonants.
"The voiceless spirants are called halanta, and this concept became the starting point of the use of conjuncts." No, halanta is a consonant without a vowel.
"Brāhmī is alphasyllabaries, meaning that it is based on the diacritically modified consonant syllabic system." Besides the incorrect plural, there's the fact that it is not really a syllabic system, or, if you're going to say it's syllabic, you should be clear how it differs from a true syllabary.
Pretty much all of your addition repeats what has been said elsewhere in the article, or if not, it is described in more detail at abugida, where the reader has already been directed for background information.
I can only follow what you wrote because I already know it. If I were a reader coming here for information, I'd be almost completely lost. I get the impression from how you write that you may be lost yourself, that you don't really understand the words you're writing. Your pardon if I'm wrong, but that's my impression from these two paragraphs.
And finally, you've made no effort to integrate them into the section, but simply tacked them on to the end. You also did not hyperlink key concepts (such as mute, alphasyllabary, spirant, halanta, conjunct, guna, vrddhi, etc.) for readers who don't understand the concepts or who want more detail. kwami (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. A couple points. I only fixed #1 myself:
- I removed a sentence about the Brahmi numerals being a positional system, because they were not. I agree they should be mentioned in the article, though, but there were separate glyphs for 10, 20, 30, etc.
- The pre-Ashokan record is presented as more certain than most scholars accept. The fact that the ref is a locally based web page makes me suspicious about its reliability; since it's 6 years old, there should be discussion in mainstream academia by now. Without that, I would assume no-one thinks it convincing enough to be worth discussing.
- Brahmi was designed for Prakrits, not Sanskrit. Sanskrit wasn't written until several centuries later (ca. 1st c. BCE). Brahmi was expanded to cover Sanskrit (more C's and V's, virama), and most Indic scripts (except Tamil) have reflected Sanskrit phonology since then, but that wasn't the original design. kwami (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
