Talk:Panini/Archive 1

message: Perhaps a hint on how to pronounce the name..? Pah-nee-nee or Pah-ni-nee or Pay-nee-nee even? --Sam Francis
:Pah-nee-nee [G]
:IIRR, the first 'n' is retroflex, the second is dental, and the stress is on the first syllable. The first 'i' is short; I'm not sure about the second and will have to find my Sanskrit book to find out. -phma
::For the Italian word, same 'n's and second 'i' too is short. [G]
::Second i is short too. I've added pronunciation info to the article. -- Arvindn 13:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm removing the "Topics in Hinduism" template because it doesn't seem to belong here. I mean, he was presumably a Hindu, but he wrote about language, not religion, right? --Angr/ 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
:I don't think a line can be drawn between language and religion in this case. The whole motivation for his grammar was the correct usage of Sanskrit in ritual. Classical Sanskrit is not a natural language, in this sense, but an artificial language intended for religious use. 83.79.181.171 16:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Topics in Hinduism" template 

message: This article is currently at Pāņini , which isn't correct -- the first n should have a . under it, not a cedilla. Paṇini currently redirects to Pāņini, so this should be fixed...
: I disagree. This is the English Wikipedia and all articles are supposed to have their usual English spelling. In this case it is simple Panini. The version with diacritics is not English, it's a romanization of Sanskrit or something along those lines. — Hippietrail 23:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already has a transliterated name. However, the transliteration is incorrect. And also, see Devanāgarī. Arun 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it already has a transliterated name, this I belive is wrong as it should have the usual English name in the usual English spelling. I have expressed similar views already on Devanāgarī, Taíno, and Yoruba language. The last of these implemented the move to the usual English spelling. — Hippietrail 15:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved it to Panini (grammarian)
*the article was at its correct name to begin with. Some old browser render n-underdot as n-cedilla because the don't have the right glyph.
**I realize some misguided soul moved it to the n-tilde version in September. That should just have been silently reverted.
*Paṇini as the correct IAST transliteration is perfectly acceptable. This is the usual spelling in English Indologist literature. I've moved it back. 
83.79.181.171 16:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's worth noting that the postage stamp pictured in the article also uses the usual English spelling with no diacritics. — Hippietrail 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I respect your opinion and tend to agree that as long as we can be accurate, there is no need not to. However I'll point out that I have a lot of unicode fonts installed and I see the title as Pā ini or with a square in the middle. Also it's transliterated anyway, so having the diacritics in the Latin characters is pointless for the title at least. I'd have to say I think Panini (grammarian) is the best article name. The current one seems arbitrary; at that point why not use IPA? - Taxman Talk 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Panini (grammarian) is fine. I guess I was objecting more to the "WP is not Indological literature" statement. I am looking forward to the day Microsoft decides to fix their browser however; it's not like you need OSX or Linux, just use Firefox on Windows, and you'll see the title alright (so it appears the issue is not the number of fonts installed on the system). It is not Wikipedia's fault if people use broken browsers. dab (ᛏ) 09:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the move to Panini (grammarian) because while Pāṇini shows the correct Romanised pronouciation, the letters with diacritics hovering around them appear as squares for those with old computers and confuses people who are not literate in IAST (which is the majority of people). The convention for Sanskrit terms/names is to leave out the diacritics in the article name anyway. GizzaChat © 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the article 

message: FYI, most of this article has been copied, with little modification, as a ComputerWorld short: .  No attribution, as far as I can tell.  (Apologies if nobody cares, or this isn't the proper procedure - my first Talk entry.)   (John 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wiki articles are GFDL, I don't think it is a fair commercial use. Just another instance of websites/print media pirateing wiki. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: what a jerk, "Geek's Garden, today's top stories copy-pasted fresh from WP". Although they have a better image of the stamp, we could take that in return :) dab (ᛏ) 06:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computerworld rip-off 

message: I removed a couple of links whose relevance was not immediately evident (to me) -- if anyone feel strongly that they should be re-added, plz. discuss it here. Thanks Zero sharp 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I suppose Ashtadhyayi should really be merged here. When we discuss "Panini", we are really discussing the Ashtadhyayi. The auxiliary texts are simple lists (ganapatha, dhatupatha), as it were data hashes, and when this article talks of "Panini and computing",  "Panini and modern linguistics" etc., "Panini" is  always "Panini's Ashtadhyayi". I don't see any reason to keep the two articles separate. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.173.84 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: I've read unsourced assertions that claim that Pāṇini was the first person to actually name the language Sanskrit as "Sanskrit."  Is this true?  If so, what did users call the language before Pāṇini came along to write his grammar? Patiwat 07:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: answered on Talk:Sanskrit. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Pāṇini the first to call Sanskrit "Sanskrit"? 

message: Dear BackMan, I didn't notice your comment on classical hinduism, modern hinduism, and Vedanta. Can you tell me who appointed you or anybody else to tell Hindus whether they belong to modern hinduism, classical hinduism, Vedic religion or something else? Who are you to decide what Hinduism is when Hindus consider the whole thing as Hinduism? Do you think you can define anything in this world perfectly without assumption? If you want to debate on this, create a page and let me know. Did you check with some western scholars why they had to consider Hinduism as oldest religion? If it was that easy to divide hinduism, they could have dated Hinduism to be around 2 days old and they could have argued that rest of Hinduism falls in prehistoric time as per the savage behavior of native Hindus and will be considered un-defined!! In anycase, I would like to see arguments of people who want to define and divide Hinduism and then want to argue what doesn't belong to Hinduism. You think that all hindus are perfect idiots, you will tell them how they need to be divided and when they were not Hindus?? What do you understand by word Hindu? I am a Brahmin, we never call ourselves Hindus!! We call our religion to be Vedic religion or Sanatan Dharma. Who you are to tell me that I belong to modern Hindu religion and not Vedic one, or that Vedic religion cease to exist by year so and so? There is no such word as old or modern Hindu religion. Hindus started using word Hindu as Islamic invaders called them Hindu, prior to that there was no such word as "hindu". The religious text of so called Hindus do not have this word "Hindu" in them. And irrespective of where the Hindus or Vedic people came from, they became Vedic in India and they till date consider themselves to be the same Vedic people, following the same Vedic religion (Megasthenese writes that the philosopher/Brahmin sect that he found in India told him that all diverse type of people you see here belong to this place itself, they never came from anywhere else and they never went to any other place).  Skant 03:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please get over this, dbachmann is not the resident Hinduism expert per WP:CAU, but neither should you spend your time writing long speeches noone is going to read. There is no doubt panini was a Hindu, and moreover, it is more imperative to categorize who is a Hindu now, rather than engage in historical categorization. He's a dead man.Bakaman 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bakasuprman, I may not be able to heed you advice on how to spend my time and nor will i care for how many people are reading my idiotic points. But if you have already read it and still you make statements like "it is more imperative now......" you should better give proper arguments to support. These things can not be and should not be just as per your wishSkant 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you're begninning to act like those armchair nationalists at Hindu Unity, completely ignorant of the real world around them.Bakaman 04:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you said Baka, nobody is listening to his rants, so lets not feed him anymore. Skant can't do anything if doesn't have reliable sources so it is better to ignore him. What he's arguing about is becoming more and more irrelevant to the Panini article anyway. GizzaChat © 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baka, do quote lines or ideas when you make your claims about me. I am not saying so in anger. I do not know about Hinduunity, but still if something made you feel that I am behaving more zealously then what i claimed earlier, do point to that statement. You can use my user page to give details, if this page is sacrosanct. Secondly, the last speech (which Baka didn't like at all and Gizza is too happy to support him with utmost sincerity) is not to ask you to make any change in this article. It was to ask you whether you believe in idiotic idea of claiming that Vedic religion, Hindu religion, modern hindu religion are different things or not; and if you do, then what is your reason behind it. This idea is used by many people on wikipedia to kind of create objections and to prevent word Hindu to be used for many ideas or concepts which certainly belongs to that religion. I don't need support from either idiots or scholars in support of the arguments that i gave against that trickery. But if you do have arguments in favour of that concept, please provide your ideas on my user page. And Gizza is right I am not speaking on Panini anymore and I was already happy with the addion of "Vedic" related lines as per your assumption. Skant 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find a more eager audience at Talk:History of Hinduism. I agree with most of your points, but charcha is not my game, nor am I religious.Bakaman 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Baka, I will go to that page soon. "Charcha" is my game (I am more concerned about intentions of people than multitude of facts, but i do not argue against facts at all). On religion: I dislike the concept of religion in totality, unfortunately we do not have a good word for people believing in God but not in religions, do let me know if you know of a good word except secular ("secular" has been politicized and tarnished beyond recognition by corrupt religious propagandist); that word can be a killer of religions and psychologically-corrupt people thriving on religions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: question to new custodians of Hinduism or Vedic religion