Talk:Abahattha

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bangladesh Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Apabhramsa?

It is not clear if this language is the same as Apabhramsa or different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a variation of Apabhramsa. Vidyapati had written:

'सक्कअ वाणी बुहअण भावइ ।
पाउअ रस को मम्म न पावइ ।
देसिल वअना सब जन मिट्ठा ।
तें तैसन जम्पओ अवहट्टा ।'

Thus it is the folk language that came after Sanskrit and Prakrit. Note that Apabhramsa varies widely from resembling Prakit to resembling early forms of North Indian languages. Malaiya (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri

As the westernmost member of the Māgadhi group, Bhojpuri is in direct contact with Avadhi and other languages of what is known as the Eastern Hindi group, with mutual intelligibility. It shares with them such grammatical features as the ‘redundant’ (Tiwari 1960:104) nominal and adjectival stems and the pronominal system. Such similarities coupled with the speakers’ sentiments about cultural and political ties and a lack of a clearly defined geographical boundary between them led scholars like Beams (1872:96) and Kellogg (1875:65) to regard Bhojpuri as an eastern variety of Hindi, a position expressly attacked by Grierson (1927:148). In fact, another scholar, Hoernle (1880: viii), even used the term ‘Eastern Hindi’ to mean primarily Bhojpuri. Chatterji (1926) essentially supported Grierson’s basic conclusion. More recently, however, Grierson’s grouping has been questioned by scholars like Cardona (1974), Jeffers (1976) and Dass (1976). On the basis of comparative reconstruction in terms of ‘shared innovation’ and not just ‘shared retention’, Dass concludes that ‘Bihari does not constitute a sub-group with Bengali…’ (1976:294), and that ‘Bihari and Eastern Hindi belong to one group…distinct from Bengali or Hindi on the basis of shared phonological innovations…’

page 366. The opinion of modern scholarship should prevail. CharlesWain (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! But unfortunately you seem very selective with your sources. The main source for linguistic families on Wikipedia is Glottolog which places Bhojpuri within the Bihari language family: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/bhoj1244

This is also reflected on the article; Bhojpuri language. Ixudi (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixudi, I expect quotation from RS; In your given link there's no mention of Abahatta; and Bihari languages are grouped under Saurisenic , same as Eastern Hindi. Odia, Assamese, Bengali etc. are under Eastern IA languages. You can't give status quo argument for unsourced or poorly sourced content. CharlesWain (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixudi, You're not participating in the discussion and currently doing edits unilaterally. No, this source has detail discussion about Maithili, and just passing mention of Bhojpuri. The reliable sources in the article are talking completely different things. The article should be rewritten, per WP:V and WP:DUE. CharlesWain (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from trying to set the discussion to your own parameters. A few hours is not a reasonable timeframe to start pushing for a response. Please await a more detailed reply from myself shortly when I am less busy. Prior to that however, a “passing mention” is not cause enough to remove all mention of Bhojpuri altogether. If you fail to understand that then unfortunately I can’t see this conversation going anywhere. Ixudi (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply an incorrect understanding of your OWN provided source. Bihari langauges are a group which includes Maithili, Bhojpuri, Magahi etc. Bhojpuri is the westernmost member of the [[Bihari languages]] group and there is not a single source which refers to Bihari languages as being "Saurisenic".

The quote from the chapter from Indo-Aryan languages literally states:

"Bhojpuri is the westernmost member of the Eastern group of languages that Grierson (1927:5) chose to group together as deriving from Mägadha (and Mägadhi Prakrit) that includes not only the other Bihari languages but also Bangla, Asamiya, and Oriya. In fact, the term 'Bihari' was first used by Grierson (1883-87) to mean a single language, with Bhojpuri, Magahi and Maithili as its three dialects. Both Chatterji (1926) and Tiwari (1960) treat them as separate languages in which Magahi and Maithili are sub-grouped together separately from Bhojpuri, sharing, among other things, a rather complex system of verbal conjugation."

Link to page: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iUHfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT448&dq=bihari+languages+magadhan+prakrit&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm6-6khI-LAxVAUUEAHZ9kJZwQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=bihari%20languages%20magadhan%20prakrit&f=false

I am rather surprised that you are picking and choosing from your own source however I will continue to assume good faith. Ixudi (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abahatta in the broader sense might even be called the ancestor of Hindi.[1]. But Gaudi or Kamarupa Abahatta (the language of Caryas) is different. This particular article might be rewritten in broader sense. You're editing pages, but haven't replied anywhere. Your editing fails basic principles such as WP:V ! CharlesWain (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "OWN provided source."? What do you mean by "I am rather surprised that you are picking and choosing from your own source" ?

I am quoting from multiple WP:RS ! And you have failed to do so ! CharlesWain (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be going off on a tangent I’m afraid. The quoted source, which you have also used, clearly demonstrates that Bhojpuri is part of the same language group as the other languages mentioned in the article. I have clearly demonstrated that you seem to have chosen a particular excerpt while seemingly missing relevant passages from the book. So tell me, once again, which reliable source states Bihari languages to be a “Saursenic”(lol) language?

I am waiting. Ixudi (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the glottolog link you have yourself given here for "Saurisenic" part.

Do you have full access to the book of Jain and Cardona? You are giving bare Google link here without proper indentation and page number. I expect better from you.

I have full access to the Routledge book, and my first comment is mentioning all the views. But we give more importance to modern scholarship, check WP:AGE MATTERS.

Anyway, Apavraamsa and Abahatta are generic terms, I will improve it accordingly. CharlesWain (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]