Talk:Odia language

message: I think this article needs a lot more content, compared to other Indian languages this article has a lot less content, I would do it myself but I don't know that much about Oriya.
user talk:24.107.115.178 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Put In More Content

message: Can someone pleaase provide a picture of a sample text (here and in Oriya script page) (because I doubt many computers support oriya fonts)? mikka (t) 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample text

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation--D-Boy 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  translators needed at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Translation]] 

message: The periodization used in this article seems to be that of Oriya literature.  Are the periods the same for the language itself? —WikiMarshall (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Haripriya Misra's Historical Oriya Morphology, the periods are Proto-Oriya (Caryā), Early Oriya (inscriptions, Mādaḷāpāñji), Middle Oriya (Sāraḷādāsa through Brajanātha), and Modern Oriya (Rādhānātha on).  Does this seem about right? —WikiMarshall (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodization 

message: Note:  Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Odisha or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 02:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Orissa Addition 

message: If you are a native speaker of Oriya then you can add this template onto user userpage:
 
--Amazonien (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oriya Unicode fonts can be downloaded from these websites (and then saving it directly to C:\Windows\Fonts):
*Alan Wood's Windows Unicode fonts
*WAZU JAPAN's Gallery of Unicode Fonts
*Unicode Oriya Font
--Amazonien (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oriya language template

message: Ok, this isn't with finding one. I DID find a font (GIST-OROTMutka-Normal) and displays on the Oriya font section in Internet section. It's the display issue with Safari. I tried going to the Oriya wiki but it did not display. But on IE, it works perfectly fine. Anyway to display Oriya fonts on Safari? Thanks. Kanzler31 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Oriya font.  

message: Parliament approves new name for Orissa (Odisha) and Oriya (Odia). utcursch | talk 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not mean that the name of the language in English is to be changed outside of India. -- Evertype·✆ 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that Oriya is the word spoken more commonly. See WP:COMMONNAME--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As, under Wikipedia guidelines, this article should be in Indian English, it really doesn't matter what it is known as outside India.  If it is known as Odia in India, that is what the Wikipedia article should be titled.  The question is, has the new name caught on in India?  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We're an international encyclopedia, not a national one. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I look forward to your proposal to convert all American English spellings to British English, rather than having parts of the encyclopedia written in a corrupted local variant.  Skinsmoke (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Odia" approved 

message: Most of Indian languages are sound based (Phonetics) and not rule based/syllables like Marathi, Bohjpuri and Odia. These are exceptions with others like Malayalam. Odia may not stress on "D but a similar pronunciation. Oriya is a more apabramsha of Odia and was due to colonization. Most of Hindi speaking people may not be able to say it. The "Sha" in Odisha is the same as the "Sha" in Shiva. I will still give more inputs on this article in my free time. I tried putting a Odia script but it didn't get uploaded in the page. I am not sure how to do it. Can someone suggest? or I can email anyone who can upload it? Thanks--Arjyap (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on and request re Odia

message: https://archive.org/details/SabdatattwabodhaAbhidhana-OriyaEtymologicalDictionary1916.pdf
https://archive.org/details/typicalselection01mazuuoft
Oḍiā
http://books.google.com/books?id=VCA6B0ZHjk0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oriya language materials 

message: I see that the user  appears to be systematically replacing all instances of Odia in Wikipedia (not just article titles) with Oriya even though Odia is the official and now oft-used variant of the word. He has pointed me to the discussion on this page which pertains solely to the article title. I don't see the sense in this and I don't see any consensus on such a site-wide move. Can someone provide more information or link me to an "official" position on such matters? Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't care about what's official, but what's common usage in English. If India changed its official name to Bharat, we would continue to call it India until general English usage changed. General usage for this language is "Oriya". — kwami (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad to see harsh notes like We don't care by Kwamikagami above. This is not really the prescribed tone in Wikipedia. How wise is it to put individual opinion as We ? Devopam (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Official names we (that is Wikipedia) does not care in this instance, because there is a common name and common names are used before official names. I also have been changing "Odia" to "Oriya". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text: It would be confusing to use one word for the title and another in the prose. My feeling on it is Wikipedia should follow trends, not lead them. To use some other name then the most common name would be telling people they should use this name not that in Wikipedia's voice. That is using Wikipedia to right wrongs and people trying to use Wikipedia to right wrongs is, to my mind, the source of most tendentious editing. The ONLY wrong Wikipedia is use to right is lack of access to neutral information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also want to interject my thoughts here... these kind of changes happens because of some people's whims and fancies and mostly governed around those who are in the power to push it thru the assemblies and legislatures (why Orissa, even Mumbai/ Bombay or Kolkatta/ Calcutta etc.)... and not sure what they were waiting for even after 60+ years of Indian independence... so what is common usage here?... Some people cite google or bing search lists but factually that would be biased for things started creeping up on internet only during late 90's or 2000's where publications started pushing their articles on the net... what about the numerous articles on newspaper, or magazines which refer the old name before that time... My point being, just putting a pointer that we have x number of results on google with "Odia" which is greater than "y" results, so this change should be done. And also why are we trying to change the tone of the discussion between "I and We"... Kwami has a point and so do you Devopam. Thanks. --Karan1974 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  They might be whims and fancies. But you will notice that hardly anybody calls Chennai, Madras nowadays nor Mumbai, Bombay. IOW, these whimsical changes do take effect for a variety of reasons. The same is already true for Odisha and I argue in the move request below, that it is also so for Odia which is now the common and preferred spelling. I believe that it is incorrect to "fix" the spelling of those users who prefer this variant which is already or will soon be the dominant form. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks @Cpt.a.haddock for your thoughts, and do agree that these are observations, and people do use either or one over the other or use one but correct themselves with the updated change or even the newer name followed by formerly called the old name. Regarding who calls it by what name is more a matter about if the person is from the immediate local perimeter or from some other place. It will no doubt the prevalent subsequently as this is all official now and all the articles or publications would be using it subsequently. However the important question right now is that should we be making the change now or should we exercise a balanced approach as what has been done with Mumbai page. Thanks,. --Karan1974 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kwamikagami's site-wide replacement of Odia with Oriya 

message: I removed the Oriya pronunciation because it had been tagged for a long time for stress and contradicted our account of the vowel inventory. If someone can fix, that would be great. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you tagged it 6 days ago. That's hardly what I'd call a "long time". And whose vowel inventory account are we talking about? I've reversed the removal. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ours, as I just said. Oriya does not have the vowels oː and aː according to the referenced vowel inventory. The pronunciation is therefore unlikely to be correct. Without a citation, anything can be deleted. If you want to restore it, provide a citation that it is correct. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed all citation-less pronunciation guides in keeping with your sentiment.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a violation of WP:POINT and can get you blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia. I left a warning on your talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Hello  and . From my knowledge of few Indo-Aryans languages that I know (Urdu/Hindi, Punjabi, Hindko...) the word must be  (/ɺ̢/ is the retroflex lateral flap) with stress on the first syllable. I suggest to fix and restore the content. Khestwol (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the vowels: Oriya does not have long vowels according to this article. It's more likely to be . But we really can't guess on something like this. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I find it inappropriate that the two users involved in removing /[oːɖiaː]/ from the article are two users who are opposed to the move from Oriya to Odia—one because it sounds "odious" and another because ଓଡ଼ିଆ can apparently only transliterate to Oriya. I don't know whether either pronunciation guide is right or wrong and none of the guides carries a citation. But the timing (in the middle of the move request) is questionable. I just don't have the patience to question it any more.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely not pronounced /[oːɖiaː]/. Not. Why are you screaming about this? It's not like they replaced it with an r. Also, Odia/Oriya's pronunciation of a retroflex lateral flap is attested on two separate Wikipedia pages. Ogress smash! 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not very familiar with IPA. So will not comment on whether that's absolutely correct or not. But, the "di" part of "Odia" is pronounced the same as the "di" part of "India". - Remoonline (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  That may well be so. But this pronunciation, which I see now, has been a part of this article since 2012, was tagged with a question about its stress a day after the above move request. Six days later, it is completely removed with a statement about it being unanswered for a "long time". With the 'r' already on the page, the removal of the 'd' by somebody favouring the 'r' in the middle of the move request was/is, to me, decidedly fishy. If you're aware of any source that attests to this IPA transcription of ଓଡ଼ିଆ, please add it to this article. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Haddock, it has nothing to do with the move request, which BTW we've had three or four times now. I simply noticed that the pronunciation was obviously wrong. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  First, it is in the lede, so cites are deprecated. Second, we know for a fact that it isn't a retroflex d. It is spelled with what NLK transliterates as ṛ, which is actually /ɺ̢/ as discussed above. Oriya/Odia spells retroflex d with /ḍ/.  I do not support adding a native pronunciation without expert info, but certainly that previous pronunciation is obviously and without question OR that needs to be deleted. As it stands, "Odia" is being given an English pronunciation, although I actually say  (), with the stress on the first syllable. Ogress smash! 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ogress, I've been pronouncing it like you do, but the dict entries I've found have the stress on the "i" for both spellings, which makes the d rendering sound less odious. We could cite if there's any actual doubt (say, people who don't know how to use a dictionary). As for the native pronunciation, the current version, [ˈoɽia] is (apart from the stress) what one would expect from Oriya alphabet. That doesn't mean it's right, of course, which is why I added a citation tag. AFAICT, the lateral flap would be ଲ ḷ, not ଡ଼ ṛ. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that /ɽ/ is only marginally phonemic (it's the intervocalic allophone of /ɖ/ in many words), and thus left off the chart, while /ɭ/ is the lateral flap. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text: , I don't know what you mean by "it sounds like the di in India". In O, or in English? Ogress smash! 05:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The pronunciation of "ଡ଼ି" in "ଓଡ଼ିଆ" when pronounced in native language is like the "di" in "India". I am not sure what it will map to on an IPA chart. - Remoonline (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Recently went through some of Maltby's A practical handbook of the Uriya or Óḍiyá language (1874). He gives "Óḍiyá" as the English name for the language which was then "ଓଡ଼ିୟା". As per the author, it was possible to acquire a good pronunciation of the language using Roman characters provided the English pronunciation is discarded and substituted with that of German or Italian. He makes a note that "ଅ" pronounced like "o" in "not" is inherent in every consonant. "ଓ" written as Ó or "ó" is pronounced long. "ଡ଼" written as "Ḍ" or "ḍ" is the cerebral or hard ḍ as in "ḍoll". "ଆ" written as "Á" or "á" is pronounced like á in father. As a native, I agree he's got the pronunciation right. "ଓଡ଼ିଆ" should be "Óḍiá".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remoonline (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: As a native speaker of the Odia language, I am very happy to see that Wikipedia has finally changed the spelling to Odia.
Strangely, many users who happen to be non-native speakers had been arguing over this.
"Odia" and "hateful"? This is sure funny. A word in one language may mean differently in other language. 
Also, the "di" in Odia is absolutely not the same as the "di" in India. From where did you get the idea?
India is pronounced with the hard "d" sound, where the toungue fully touches the palate.
The "di" in Odia is the retroflex sound and not the hard 'd' sound, where the toungue does not fully touch the palate.
In Odia 'd', we roll the tongue. But in India 'd', we stick the tongue to the palate.
It is just that the Latin alphabet is insufficient to represent all sounds. 
Also, in the Odia script, d is ଡ whereas r is ର which looks completely different; and the actual retroflex character is ଡ଼ which is very close to ଡ , except the dot under it.
Also, no one in India says Oriya with the 'r' sound. 
People outside India do NOT know the language, so they followed the "wrong" spelling and pronunciation.
Spelling and pronunciation mistakes are ought to be taught and corrected. 
For example, Español is pronounced as "espanyol", but many non-Spanish people pronounce it as "espanol". This is a mistake.
Similarly, pronouncing Oriya with the hard 'r' sound is a mistake.
How would you feel if I pronounce "English" as "ingliss" ? Or "Wikipedia" as "bikipedia" ? This is how many people from Odisha tend to pronounce these words due to localization.
As for the internet results are concerned, the articles were written before the name had changed. People are not "interested" in "Oriya", they type because they want more results. But gradually sites are changing. 
Even Fedora changed it's font name Lohit-Oriya.ttf to Lohit-Odia.ttf . 
Car numbers from Odisha were changed from OR xxxxxx to OD xxxxxx .
Odia shall gradually replace Oriya soon in the future.
We need to give time.
Also I was amused that when Orissa was quickly changed to Odisha, what was wrong with Odia. Odisha too had that r vs d issue, isn't it? "Orissa" had more internet articles, isn't it? Then how come there was no such argument? Isn't this hypocrisy?
Now with Wikipedia changing the name, soon the English and Spanish speaking world will realise that it is actually Odia and not Oriya.
And please, don't self educate yourselves regarding any language without confirming it with a native speaker.  Anwesh pati (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glad to see "Odia" finally 

message: While I see a lot of discussion about things like whether we should use 
"Odia" or "Oriya" etc., I'm thoroughly disappointed in the content itself.
1. It is not comprehensive - missing many people, styles, etc. etc.
2. Even the chronology of Odia Literature seems to have been invented without any scholarly reference.
3. The content is arbitrary, opinionated, confusing and feels like a school child would have done a better job.
4. If anyone outside of Odisha reads it, I doubt she/he will have any positive view of Odia Literature. 
5. I can go on and on but this is very amateurish attempt written in a hurry to satisfy someone or some institution.
The whole content should be scrapped, go to the drawing board, start from square one, outline what needs to be included, do the research, provide comprehensive views (not just one person's) and provide clear citations and references for everything 
Sorry, this doesn't cut it for me and I'm sure for many others who are interested and vested in Odia literature.
Jajabara (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from the top of this page, this article is considered "vital" but its quality is deemed to only be of "start" class. If you are able to improve it with reliable sources, please do so. You appear to be primarily unhappy with the Literature section. Note that the "main article" for that is over at Odia literature (and isn't particularly well-sourced either).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget syntax, names etc. for now 

message: Hi,
From first glance, it seems to me like a lot of these tribal languages mentioned as dialects are not actually part of the Odia genetic macrofamily. Rather, they are tribal languages spoken IN Odisha state and I must say their inclusion has been nebulously explained (they have been described inaccurately as "mixes" of Odia and different languages, etc). While I appreciate the fact they may have been significantly influenced by Odia (I don't know) and that many contributors to this article are presumably speakers of these tongues who would like their language to be 'popularised', this is ultimately not the appropriate location to do it - these languages should be mentioned on the general Odisha page (if anywhere) and not categorised along with Odia or as part of the Odia macrofamily.
I believe that Wikipedia needs to be encyclopaedic, clear, concise, and most importantly - accurate. I am new to Wikipedia so I would like to somehow 'flag' this section for clean-up, to revert it to how it was before before all these languages were erroneously (and incongruously) included. Or perhaps, when I have time, I will be cleaning up this article myself. Just letting everybody know.
Thanks.
Apologies for any offence called.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up. Most of this list was added by  a few weeks ago. I haven't bothered to deal with it as it's not my area. Feel free to swing the broom. However, if any of these language varieties have been seriously (or popularly) considered in the past as "dialects" of Oria, then it will be suitable to have a mention of this somewhere in the article. Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects and languages 

message: I'm removing the claim that Odia is attested in "10th Millennium B.C." and "3rd century BC Ashoka edit of Dhauli and 1st century BC Hathigumpha inscription". The Government of Odisha's publications are not acceptable sources for this claim: they have an obvious conflict of interest in proving that Odia is an 'ancient' classical language. This needs independent, peer-reviewed scholarly sources. utcursch | talk 16:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquity 

message: What happened with the citations for the phonology? Were they even cited? And what happened with the separate page entitled "Oriya phonology"? Does anybody have any information here? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for phonology? 

message: Is the inclusion of this map meant to tell the reader the geographic extent of the language?  If so, I am somehow missing the point and feel an explanation is needed.  On the face of it, the inclusion of this map is an unhelpful distraction. SpinningSpark 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although an extreme crop, limiting the image to Eastern India, might have some use - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even seeing that as useful.  The map is marked with neither the people nor Orissa.  Without some context in the text saying how the Odia language related in the 2nd century to the people or states marked on the map, it's just distracting decoration. SpinningSpark 18:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  World map 

message: Hi everyone, I've been reading the previous discussions about the name of the language and I would like to share my opinion.
# I noticed a very common misconception, one that says "the name of the language has been changed". The name of the language, its pronunciation has not been changed at all, everyone speaking the language or working with it, pronounces it still the same. However the spelling for that pronunciation has been officially changed by the Indian government. Whether you write Oriya or Odia, the pronunciation should be the same, it's pronounced with a retroflex "r" sound. The dilemma behind "how one should spell it in English?" is a question of whether one prefers the pronounciation (Oriya) or the spelling etymologically closer in the original language (Odia). Let me elaborate:
# In almost all Indo-Aryan languages including Oriya, there are two sets of consonants for "t" and "d" and their aspirated versions "th" and "dh": one dental and one retroflex for each. Phonologically speaking, for a monolingual French native speaker, there is only one t and one d- a dental one (same goes for Spanish or Turkish as well). Comparatively, for a speaker of Oriya or Bengali, there are "4 t"s - /t/, /th/, /ʈ/ and /ʈh/ and "4 d"s - /d/, /dh/, /ɖ/ and /ɖh/. There are completely different letters, with different symbols on their alphabet (t, th, ṭ, ṭh, d, dh, ḍ, ḍh)
# In Sanskrit language there is a rule concerning the last two letters: Ḍ and Ḍh are pronounced in two different ways. The letter ḍ is pronounced like a retroflex d (/ɖ/) at the beginnig of a word, for example "ḍambaru". However it is pronounced like a retroflex r (/ɽ/) in the middle or at the end of a word, as in "āḍambara" which is pronounced "āṛambara". (Here ṛ represents the retroflex r (/ɽ/), not the vowel.) Same goes for the letter ḍh.
# Oriya or Odia language, as well as many languages descending from Sanskrit kept this rule. Additionally some of these languages - icluding Oriya and Bengali - for the sake of clarity of pronunciation, created extra letters by placing a dot under the original letter. So today in Oriya, the letter ଡ (ḍ) takes a dot under it and becomes ଡ଼ (ṛ) whenever it's pronounced with a "retroflex r" instead of a "retroflex d" - or whenever it occurs in the middle or at the end of a word. In Sanskrit it's the same letter (no dot under) but ଡ଼ (ṛ) is technically a different letter in Oriya, even though for native speakers it's also just a variation of the former ଡ (ḍ).
#Thus, I do understand the support towards the spelling Odia of some native speakers above. I think one reason behind it, is that the normal letter ର (r) in Oriya language which is very much like a Spanish single "r", is pronounced totally different than the retroflex ଡ଼ (ṛ) which is also sometimes spelled as "rh". Another reason I think is, for them ଡ଼ (ṛ) is nothing but a ଡ (ḍ) with a dot below, put to clarify pronunciation. If you wouldn't place the dot, they would still pronounce it the same - as long as it is in the middle or end of a word. (Though you have to put it for correct spelling.)
#However, spelling in English the name of different languages and transliterating them from source languages are two different things entirely. I personally prefer to spell Oriya in English, as it seems ridiculous to write Odia for the same pronunciation (not to mention that it looks like "odious"). The English letter "d" doesn't stand for an "r" sound. But when I transliterate a text from Oriya, then I could easily spell "Oḍiā" or "Oŕiá" depending on the transliteration rules I'm using.
#The change in the spelling from Oriya to Odia was - as I mentioned above - made by the Indian government. It's a political decision and it obviously influences the number of results in Google. Here in WP, I believe that we should proceed with neutrality, due weight and a balanced approach. Number of results in Google do not always reflect the actual use (To consider also that Orisha has a predominantly rural population). Moreover, in WP we should not solely decide based on a populist approach such as "Google results from last year alone compared to Google results from all times". Of course it has some importance, however those results should be considered together with other facts and factors and due weight should be given.
#Political decisions and officiality - Should WP reflect changes every time an administration changes something officially? Officiality of any decision will always bring some popularity afterwards. That popularity - or official decision - however is not always enough to override the natural way something is referred to. Should we change Allahabad to Prayagraj? Should we change Bosphorus Bridge to 15 July Martyrs Bridge? I believe not. Those decisions could be reverted at any point in time. Common usage dictates how we should call it, not official decisions.
#If Germany, together with Austria decides to change the name of the German language from Deutsch to Allemanisch. And many newspapers  while writing about the change may refer to German as the Alleman language. Should we then follow suit and change the name of the German language in one year? Those changes in this hypothetical example concerns the German language, not English. Even though languages influence each other, that takes time.
#If I'm going to spell an "r" sound with a d in English, (for speakers of some other languages that could even be an "l" sound) then should other languages (or other language-WPs) follow suit and spell it with a "d" as well? Just my two-cents. --Universal Life (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the language - some comments 

message: The article says that Odia has three genders (neuter, masculine, feminine), whilst according to Britannica, Odia —as neighboring Bengali and Assamese in Eastern India— has practically no grammatical genders, with only certain tatsama (Sanskrit loanwords) adjectives being inflected for gender, and even then with no morphological consequences for the pronoun and the verb.
Can anyone shed a light on this? Thank you. Marxolang (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source that says Odia does not have grammatical gender . Psanu (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Genders in Odia 

message: Spbal (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from other article of wikipedia 

message: Can anyone answer this 2409:4042:4D38:85A7:0:0:B64A:770A (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why schools are giving projects on odisha 

message: @Fdom5997 The reference I meant is the book by Masica, given in footnote 58. I'm not sure whether it's correct, as the literature seems confused and doesn't make it very clear whether it's flap or approximant. It could be both of course. Exarchus (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not correct. Sources like Ray (2003) are more detailed and updated and do not list the phoneme as such. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for that, then I'll change the reference from Masica to Ray. Exarchus (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetic value of retroflex lateral