Talk:Sinhala language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:language
 language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Older Stuff

Some old stuff that are not really notable but took a big space were moved here on Thursday, November 03, 2005. - Greenleaf 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Move result

There was a request to move the page on WP:RM, however the proper procedure did not appear to followed. Please refile and use the proper procedure outlined at WP:RM#Instructions please :). Take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what the reason for request was: I cannot find such an entry in recent days' entries. There doesn't seem to be any reason to move this page???? Greenleaf 09:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
We don't need a bureaucratic decision for such a self-evident move. If the language and the people use the adjective form (EB does) then it's really nothing to discuss. It's standard practice to disambiguate by using "XXX language" and "XXX people".
Peter Isotalo 12:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not ask for beurocracy. I asked for a reason, which you provided, and could do with a lot less words if you did not assume things. I did not even know that the proposed move was to (as now I assume from your "reason") Sinhalese. Greenleaf 12:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Greenleaf. I misunderstood your question.
Peter Isotalo 17:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Move request was to Hottentot Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
heh! No, the request was made by Hottentot. :-D
Peter Isotalo 17:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi Peter,

Actually I wonder if we really have the same basis here: When adjectival style is used, it looks like it's almost always used in a context of a country; such as people from China were chinsese, so the language the Chinese talk is Chinese. Same for Japanese, Swedish its. There is no Sinhala country. If people are called Sinhalese because they speak sinhala - then the language must be called Sinhala - OR - if the language is called Sinhalese because it's sopken by Sinhala people, then people must be called Sinhala. If both are adjectival, what exactly is the root?

On the other hand, newer standards such as unicode use the term Sinhala not Sinhalese [1](warning: PDF File). Even EB says, "the mother tongue of the Sinhalese is Sinhala—an Indo-Aryan language"[2] and Encarta calls the language Sinhala. [3] I propose we keep the language name as it was and change the name of people to Sinhalese. Greenleaf 05:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That was kinda unexpected, considering that EB kept it under "Sinhaelse language". But if you feel you've really checked it out and that "Sinhala" really is the most common name for it, I suggest you ask bishonen to move it back. Don't go through WP:RM. That'll just mean that there will be a very unnecessary vote about an issue that seems to be very obvious. My experience with RM votes is that a lot of people who participate them more about their own opinions than listening to reasoned arguments.
Peter Isotalo 09:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it back to Sinhala, because that's what the issue is about, right? --Hottentot
Thanks, both of you. Just to make myself clear, I do agree with Peter's opinion that RMs for this kind of stuff is just a waste of time, disk space, and bandwidth. However I was baffeled because one could easily use the move page option directly as per WP:RM#Instructions, which specifically says,
"note that many page moves may be accomplished by any logged in user by using the move button ... Requested moves is intended only for moves that either may be disputed, so that consensus should be obtained before the move"
so I thought the reason would have been a one which the requesting person himself thought to be controversial, and I was naturally curious to know what it was. Greenleaf 10:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Um, as far as I know the Sinhalese people speak the Sinhalese language. All British books refer to the Sinhalese people or (Cinghalese) who speak Sinhalese.

"As far as you know" doesn't answer the question I raised above. What does the root word (as China for chinese and Japan for Japanese) refer to in case of Sinhala then?
I gave Enough reference from current and reputed sources, incluing Encyclopedia Britannica, which is supposedly British. Could you please explain with citations your "all British Books" claim? Greenleaf 05:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The book is Ceylon and the Sinhalese by Henry Charles Sirr. The Sinhalese speak Sinhalese just as the Tamils speak Tamil and the Marathis speak Marathi and the Telugus speak Telugu and the Kashmiris speak Kashmiri and the Bengalis speak Bengali and the Nepalis speak Nepali and the Bhutanese speak Bhutanese and the Japanese speak Japanese and the Chinese speak Chinese. The old name for Sri Lanka is "Sinhale" or "Sihala" or "Tun-Sinhala" (when it was divided into three divisions - Maya, Ruhunu and Pihiti).
if this is a valid point, then by the time the English invented the word Sinhalese, they should have used the word Sinhala to denote the country (as the case with Japan and China - japan for that matter was not even a Japanese word, the English called the country Japan and called it's people Japanese). That was not the case. They called it Ceylon, and conforming to that, called the people Ceylanese once in a while. But this rule is not how SINHALESE formed, because British never used "Sinhala" to mention the country with the same prominense they used Sinhalese to mention about the people. Greenleaf 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Why should the british have used the word "Sinhala" to denote the country? Especially when they realised that it was inhabited by a variety of people and not only by the Sinhalese? The British used to refer to the Tamils as Malabars and the Sinhalese as either Sinhalese or Cinghalese or Singhalese and differentitated between Chetties and Muslims and Afghans and Malays and Moors who were living on the island at the time. Did you think the Brits just saw a huge load of brown faces and throught they were all the same? Do you honestly think they were that dumb? I have not yet come across the British ever calling the Sinhalese "Sinhalas." They referred to the language spoken by the Sinhalese as Sinhalese.
Then what was your point in pointing out that SL was called Sinhale? "Just to look smart" according to your own way of reasoning? I addressed that point, and showed that it was not relevent to how "sinhalese" came up (in the Japan-Japanese style). Greenleaf 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Got that Greenleaf? Even though I speak Sinhalese and all, I'm sure you know *much* more than everybody else including Sri Lankans themselves.
No, I say, "Sinhala people or Sinhalas speak Sinhala, just as Tamils use Tamil. This (yours) is not an argument in inself because it can be used to justify ANY spelling, like "let's call it Shingalese - Shingalese speak Shingalese just as Tamils speak Tamil". It does not address whether the correct root is Sinhala or Sinhalese. It merely says that both language name and people's name must be the same. And in any case you don't say "Tamilese speak Tamilese" - "Marathees speak marathees" and Thelugeese speak thlugeese" Tamil, Thligu, Marati were derived by their respective native words, and were used as such except for pronunciation. And if you really want to follow that rule, follow it in full and Sinhala must be called Sinhala just because that's what original sinhala people called it (and there was no need to translate a name). THERE ARE NO COUNTRIES (how many times do i have to stress this) called Tamil, Telugu, Hindi or SINHALA. China is a country, Japan is a country. PEOPLE FROM CHINA ARE CHINESE. Greenleaf 03:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The book you mentioned was an old-style one (it called Sri Lanka ceylon as well), and all references i cited were both new, and authoriative. Greenleaf 03:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Since when have the Sinhalese been called "Sinhalas" in English? The only person I know who uses that term is Balachandran of the Hindustan Times (an Indian newspaper).
Answer is here and if that is not enough, here are some BRITISH links. But I was not arguing for Sinhala's per se - i was just showing that ANYTHING can be said in the style Tamils speak Tamil so IT WAS NOT a concluding argument. The English speak English, The Sinhala speak Sinhala. :-) Greenleaf 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been the norm to refer to the people as the Sinhalese in English. In Sinhalese it's sinhalaya (singular) and sinhalayo or sinhalayan (plural) The British called much of the people of Ceylon either Sinhalese or Cinghalese who spoke the Sinhalese language. This has been the norm for centuries since the Brits arrived in Sri Lanka and added to the English vocabulary, way before you decided to come along and change it all simply because you thought it was "more correct." The Sinhalese have never been called "Shingalese" so I really do not see where your argument is going. Tamil is really the anglicised term because it's THAMIZH not Tamil in actual Tamil pronunciation. You do realize in Indian English that Tamils are called Tamilians as well?

what you point out about Tamil is a transliteration issue, not a naming issue of தமிழ், but Sinhalese is not a transliteration of සිංහල. 'nuff said.
Unicode, EB, ISO 639-2, SIL, and several other stuff I mentioned also "came along" and contributed to the change, it's not myself alone. Google gives 2,040,000 hits for Sinhala and 1,520,000 for Sinhalese, showing the declining trend in CURRENT work. If there was a wikipedia around 1972, were you gonna argue that Sri Lanka must still be called Ceylon in English just because that's what it has been called for centuries and was the 'norm'? English could equally say, "we don't care what natives call it, we don't wanna change what WE CALL IT". Greenleaf 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
And what exactly is this argument you have with names of countries? It sounds rather childish to me; is this your "academic" position? I mean really?
It was an argument about root forms. If you don't get it once, you won't get it how many times i repeat it. if you think you are right, please go for an RfM and i'll argue there, hoping OTHER PEOPLE to understand. And yes, i mean really. Did i here "childish"? Greenleaf 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Neither China nor Japan are as heterogenous as Sri Lanka. The vast majority of Chinese are Han Chinese and in Japan - are there any minorities besides the insignificantly small Ainu? Thus a non-racial name was and is more apt for Sri Lanka which has large Tamil and Muslim minorities, but Sri Lanka was indeed called Sinhale or Sihala (Pali Chronicles) in the past.
It does not matter as long as English didn't call it Sinhala, because Sinhalese is coined by the English. if you don't get this point, i can't do anything much. You may want to take this argument for a RfM and argue there. Greenleaf 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Since when is Encyclopaedia Britannica "authoritative"? Why don't I just pull out any of the other hundreds of encyclopedias put out by other publishers?
Because I don't have access to them. You cite, you give evidence, then i'll see. Greenleaf 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Sinhalese are the people, they speak the language called Sinhala. --Hottentot


Let's redefine the argumenmt so people do not get confused. Should this topic name take a spelling that reflects the native pronunciation of the word (ie Sinhala), or should the topic name take a spelling that reflects the Anglicized pronunciation of the word (ie Sinhalese) ? --AE

[edit] Veddah Language

I removed the part that suggested Veddahs originally spoke some other language just from the fact they have a lot of words that are not found in any other languages. That claim is unsubstantiated, and is like saying that the English originally spoke some other language other than Common Germanic just because English has a lot of words not found originally in any other language. Languages evolve and would definitly have more words added during 2000 years - if we just let 500 early years go. So having new words after seperation is not a good argument for a different origin, unless you give better reasons. Right now, there is no claim whether it was/was not derived by Sinhala, and let people decide with better facts, when someone provides them some day. Greenleaf 02:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not "veddaH" it's either "veddha" or "vedda." In Sinhalese the word is written either with an aspirated dh or a soft d - there is no aspirated "ah" at the end of the word. But of course, you should know better because you don't even speak the language right? Silly me.
what is the name of your prime minister and how is it written in English? MahinDHA? How about your president? ChanDHRika? DH is usually used for stuff like DHAthusena, to emphasise the difference between 'ද' and 'ධ'. What do you want? වැද්දා or වැධ්ධා? This would be enough, hopefully, to clarify things. Whether the lash soft h is needed or not is a different story, as some English writers prefer it, although i agree it's not really necessary. Greenleaf 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Mahinda is written with the soft d and Chandrika is written with DRIYANNA and not DHAYANNA. Vedda is not spelt with an aspirated H at the end. This is relegated for animal sounds like TING TAH for squirrels or for special Sanskrit words like BRAH as in BRAHMAN.

[edit] Sinhalese

Also, whoever, please DO stop changing Sinhala to Sinhalese without giving your reasons for doing so. Give User:Hottentot a break. Greenleaf 02:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No I won't. Tell Hottentot to stop deleting all the additions other people put up, including the word list of Sinhalese words in English. If he doesn't respect other people and their contributions, I don't see why others should respect him.
If you don't stop that, you'll have to fight with me, not with Hottentot, because it's for my argument he changed the page, and keeps protecting it. Respecting your contribution does not necessarily mean every other editor letting you have your own arbitrary way. I gave my reasons why it should be Sinhala and NOT Sinhalese, and there was a consensus, please refute them before changing it back. Greenleaf 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Bring it on. I have given you my reasons why it should be Sinhalese and NOT Sinhala. If he keeps on deleting the list of Sinhalese words in English I shall continue to place it back AND change the spelling in the article to Sinhalese. Ask him to desist first because the list of Sinhalese words in English was there long before - he started deleting it once he found out that someone had dared to touch his precious little article. You call that "protecting" the page do you? Hilarious. Perhaps both you and Hottentot ought to familiarise yourselves with the idea behind Wikipedia. As far as I know it's not up to two people (you and Hottentot) to rule as if you were emperors. It's time to get off the silver pedestal and mingle with the plebians.
best answer to this is to point out that this same argument can be brought up by a vandal, to say VANDALISM must also be allowed just because this is a wiki. NO, it's not the case, and as long as your edits are not justified (i did NOT say that you vandalized), "this is a wiki, everyones edits are same" is not an argument for having your own way. I'm answering the argument you brought up here, the "idea behind wikepedia" one, and you may want to familiarise yourself with the idea that WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy Greenleaf 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever given thought to the fact that maybe - just maybe - that YOUR edits are not justified? Who died and made you king? You think you and Hottentot have the absolute right to run around Wikipedia deleting and editing to your hearts content, without caring at all about what other people wish to contribute? Your little buddy Hottentot gave no JUSTIFICATION for his deleting spree. Do you think that is good manners?
then go for an RfA, talk, or argue here, that's a different story. None of us said we are right - I just addressed your "wiki" argument, (i said in plain engligh that i'm addressing THAT argument) to show that it is too ambiguous to resolve stuff, because even a vandal can say "this is wikipedia, anyone can edit - so let me edit George Bush page and write "annie suck cock" there. Greenleaf 05:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kukavi vaada

To the idiot Hottentot who keeps changing "kukavi vaada" to "kukavi vada" do you actually know that doing so completely changes the meaning? In Sinhalese "vaada" means "debates" and "vada" means "turmoil/trouble" so quit changing it. You're acting like a complete moron. Let people who actually speak the language correct the mistakes.

vaada also means theory (sapekshathavaada), belief (niyathivaada), attitude (avasthavaada), and speech (musaavaada) and vada also means a name of a flower, punishment (in pali meaning), and toture. Coming back to problem, again, good examples would be 'ChanrikAA' and RAAjapakse'. (or, for the lack of good example in Mr Wickramasinhe's name, GAAminEE DisAAnAAyake'). Even in Enlglish itself there are instances where pronunciation is affected by the context, i don't see why you must make a big fuss of it. There are so many foreign words which has aa sound, i don't see everyone insist that they must be written in a way that unmistakenly represents the sound. Also think, for instance, 'read' (present) and 'read' (past) in English itself, which are propunced in totally different ways according to context. Having a little ambiguity doesn't kill anyone. Why not worry about bigger mistakes, for instance, just have a look at the picture on vedda(h) page - it's a blatant misrepresentation of facts, showing a village community picture as a vedda picture. The guy in whites is most probably a school teacher or a local doctor, who were among the most educated in local socity in those times. :-/
and ah, let's not use charged words. most editors are good-faith, Hottentot sure is, and let's talk and work together than calling names. Greenleaf 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
on a second thought, i feel that it'd better be 'vaada', but let's not take this to extreme that every sinhala 'ආ' must be represented with 'aa'. Greenleaf 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll be changing it to vaada every time it gets changed to vada. You have only given names of people as examples and we're not talking about names of people here. Unless of course you happen to know/see Sri Lankans calling their daughters or sons "vada" or "vaada"? Please. And in anycase all Sri Lankan English papers spell it as vaadaya and vaada (eg Panadura Vaadaya NOT Panadura Vadaya - the latter would make people burst out into laughter upon reading it) so I'm going to stick to that. And Hottentot? The less said the better.
PS vaada only means those things when it is compounded with other words. On its own it means "debates" or "conflicts". Are you trying to say that light = lighthouse = lightning and so forth because they all have the word "light" in them?
This straw man argument is, borrowing your own words, hilarious. This would apply in case I said that vada = sapekshathavada = niyathiwada = musawada. I did not say anything near that, but you might want to read a bit more about what is meant by etymological roots. If you don't want to go that far, can you please think a little how lighthouse got its name and how lightening got its? BECAUSE, there was an English word, LIGHT, which means, uh, light. I don't want to go far on this because this is a peripheral matter. Greenleaf 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's a "peripheral matter" why did you lug it into this conversation? So you would seem "smart"? Let me spell it out for you incase you're going blind. You said: "vaada also means theory (sapekshathavaada), belief (niyathivaada), attitude (avasthavaada), and speech (musaavaada)." Note the "also means."
To show that spelling for those stuff can be such that "Vaada" is spelt as 'vada' in english - like here and here Greenleaf 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC).
Uh NO, vaada does NOT also mean those things. Just as "light" doesn't also mean "lighthouse" or "lightning." DUHHHH.
 :-) I suggest that you read what i wrote above to address this very argument. Or, have a look at etymology of Vibhajyavada. Anyway, I'll stop at this on vaada thing, because that time can better be spent on anything people would actually care. Have whatever spelling you want for vaada. You win. Greenleaf 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Meta: please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically insert an ID and timestamp.
Romanization of Sinhalese. If you can't agree about "a" and "aa", we can go with ISO 15919[4] and use a scientific transliteration.
Pjacobi 10:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
GREAT ! thanks a lot for suggesting this. :-) Greenleaf 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of lemma

O.K. I'm tired of this revert warring about "Sinhala" versus "Sinhalese". For now the lemma is "Sinhala" and in line with our policy I will enforce the use of "Sinhala" in the article. If this is considered wrong, please follow the WP:RM process. --Pjacobi 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page, until the resolution of the naming conflict. --Pjacobi 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the anon should stop changing the page

First off, language articles are not supposed to have long list of words. There's really no point it that. Also, since the title of the page is at Sinhala, why do you keep changing it to Sinhalese? Your choice of "Veddha" over "Veddah" is may be "correct" to you, or to others, but on Wikipedia, we don't use what people believe to be correct", but what is most commonly used. "Veddah" recieves 9,280 Google hits, while "Veddha" recives 753. --Hottentot

I am in favour of keeping the long list of words but putting them on a separate page linked to this one. There are many such articles for English and other languages: List of English words of Irish origin, Words of Russian derivation, List of replaced loan words in Turkish, etc. — Hippietrail 01:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
agreed on this. Greenleaf 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not a long list Hottentot. Why don't you hop on over to the Bengali language page and check out the lists there? They must be gigantically, utterly humongous for you if 20 words is a "long list." Why don't you go on your little deleting spree there as well? I'm sure the people who add to that page will be delighted with your charming behaviour.

[edit] Removed final few new paragraphs

A few badly written paragraphs were added which add nothing to an Encyclopedic article on the Sinhala. They are full of bad grammar and do not make sense. I have removed them. We need to keep this article to known facts and keep it linguistic in framework. Imperial78

[edit] Contradiction

The article and infobox contradict each other. One says there are 15 million people speak Sinhala while the other says 13 million. These figures need to be verified. GizzaChat © 09:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue gives 13 million, so I've changed it as such. —Khoikhoi 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


According to the official census of 2001, 81.9% of the population in the 18 districts which the census was carried out (minus the North and East) were Sinhalese, and therefore almost certainly speak Sinhalese. Since the census found the population in those districts to be 16,864,687, 81.9% is approx. 13.8 million. Plus the Sinhalese in the other districts, plus the Muslims, Tamils and other races that speak Sinhalese, plus the expatriates, plus the growth in population it should easily surpass the 15 million mark. Therefore I'm changing the figure to 15 mil.

Also, the figure given in the above link (Ethnologue) is a 1993 estimate and doesn't look too credible.Snowolfd4 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Just realied the text says 16 mil and the factbox 15 mil. Not right. So according to the reasons I gave above I'm making the Factbox 16 mil too. --snowolfd4 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Hi. A few words concerning my edits:

  • The Sinhala alphabet definitely does not consist of 56 characters. The exact count seems to be 59 (including syllabic l, the ligature for jna, anusvara and visarga), but I think you could dispute even that. And what is the signifiance of the number of characters anyway?
  • What is a "high vowel content"? "High" compared to what? I know what the author meant to say (namely that consonant clusters are rare in Sinhala), but this way of putting it is inaccurate.
  • I removed the image of the word "sinhala" in Sinhala writing because on the one hand I don't see the significance when there is a separate article on the Sinhala alphabet and on the other hand the writing in the picture is not according to Sinhala writing practice (as an be seen when you compare [[5]] to සිංහල).

The article needs to be extended. I will do that when I have the time. Krankman 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, 172.128.165.94, while reverting you broke the formatting of the first word and you failed to insert the space between "... Lanka.Sinhala ..." I am not going to change this now in the hope that somebody else will see what is going on here and assist in keeping the article good.
By the way, it is outrageous and impertinent to call my edits "POV". I don't see how anyone could agree with you on that.
Hear my argument:
  • Calling Sinhala "unique" is unnecessary because any language is unique.
  • Calling Sinhala a "classical" language is misleading because a classical language is a language primarily used in literature and which is not in use as a mother tongue anymore, like Sanskrit, Pali etc. We should create a separate article on Sinhala literature. There is a great difference between language and literature. This is supposed to be the linguistic article.
  • Sinhala is not spoken "only" in Sri Lanka. There are thousands of Sinhalese living abroad.
  • Why is it spoken "vastly" among the Sinhalese? It is the mother tongue of 99% of the Sinhalese people, I would say that qualifies for simply calling it the mother tongue of the Sinhalese. I don't understand your problem with that.
  • Sure Sinhala is spoken by the other ethnic groups as well, but mostly only those living among the Sinhalese in the South of the island and almost exclusively as a second language. When we state here who are the speakers of a language, we firstly mean the native speakers. That's why I took up your idea of mentioning others speaking Sinhala and added the sentence about second language speakers.
This seems to be a question of how to write an encyclopedic article on a language. When you look at the articles on Dhivehi, Hindi, French or Bengali, you will see that superfluous adjectives are avoided and only the most basic facts are stated. If this article here is supposed to be a serious article, we have to keep with that policy. Krankman 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree with Krankman on the point mentioned. The only sensible use of unique would be isolated as in isolated language, but this obvioiusly doesn't apply here. --Pjacobi 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
O.K. I have missed a space, you could have done a minor edit there, no big deal!
I appologise if I offended you in anyway by using POV. SORRY.
Your argument:
  • I called Sinhala a unique language to state that it is exclusively and "solely" used in Sri Lanak!It is not an international languages nor its used in any other country as a common language. State one country that uses sinhala language as a common language for communication? Therefore its quite allright to use "unique" here. Obviously Sinhalese people can talk Sinhala where ever they go. I dont think language is recalled by geograghy.What does that have to do with Sinhala being used 'ONLY' in Sri lanka.
It is unnecessary to call any language "unique". And it is not appropriate, whatever reasons you may give. Check other articles on languages spoken only in one country (for example on Icelandic language, Burmese language and Romansh language) - no mention of them being "unique" there.
  • I checked about the classicality of the Sinhala language and yes your correcct.You cant call it a classical language it was ultimately derived from Indo-Aryan speech which is in turn divided into two phases of evolution: an old Indo-Aryan speech (C.2000-800 B.C.) represented by Sanskrit language used in central India and a middle Indo-Aryan speech (C.800 B.C-400 A.D.) represented by Pali, the language of Buddhist scripture.But let me do more research on that one.
There is no necessity to do any research. The history of the Sinhala language is well-documented. (See the writings of Wilhelm Geiger for example.) There was/is a classical language ("Elu"), and a modern language divided up into written and spoken Sinhala. It's as simple as that.
  • The reason for speaking sinhala "vastly" anoung Sinhalese is because they are more comfortable in speaking their own language. Just like any other speaker.A french will speak the french language, a German will speak german language, a british will talk english.Thats because they are more fluent in their own language just as you discribe it - its their mother tongue. Another good example is Hindi primary tongue of 30% of people in India.I dont disagree with that.
Sinhalese people speak Sinhala as their mother tongue. Not "vastly", but just like that. That's how being a "Sinhalayaa" is defined by most. Enough said.
  • You are factually wrong here!! Sinhala is spoken among all ethnic groups in Sri Lanka is because Sinhala is the "National" language of Sri Lanka and "not" because its the mother tonge of the Sinhala!(WorldFact). It doesnt happen always that all people in a country speak their national language.Like in India National language is Hindi but not all states speak Hindi. Since this is a artical about Sinhala I think "Sinhala is the National and Official language of Sri lanka" should be hilighted, cos thats a "fact".(WorldFact).
Yes, Sinhala is spoken by a certain amount of members of all ethnic groups. But your way of phrasing it implies that everyone in Sri Lanka knows Sinhala. That is wrong, and it was wrong before 1983. And the government does not force anyone to speak Sinhala. It is one of the national languages of Sri Lanka and the mother tongue of the Sinhalese who comprise the majority of the population. Just like in India, Hindi is one of the national languages, but there is a high percentage of people who don't speak it.
What is so important about Sinhala being the national language? You people have to realize that the Sinhala language is an important, rich, beautiful language with a millenia-old tradition, and that that makes it great, not its status as some "national", "classical" or "unique" language!

-- Ruvi 172.133.252.133 05:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments added by Krankman 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinhala comes from Sanskrit

Sinhala comes from sanskrit!Therefor both these languages have similar words!Thus this statement need to be clarified before reinsertion. TCWales 18:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"The periodic invasion of Sri Lanka by Tamils from south India led to many Tamil words being added to the Sinhala language."

List of Tamil words in Sinhala.

[edit] Make-over

Hi.

I have replaced the former version with a translation of the German version of the article. It is for sure not as exhaustive as it should be, but it is a linguistic article as it should be. Just the most necessary of information along with links to pages relating to linguistic concepts touched.

Before, there was a lot of info relating to literature which doesn't belong here. For that, there should be a separate article on Sinhala literature. (That's gonna be even more of a POV fight I suppose ... :-( )

Please don't make any changes to this new article unless you have a linguistics background and you are sure that there are factual errors. Please! Krankman 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with having a "literature" section as part of a "language" article, as long as that doen't render the article unwieldy in terms of length. See for example Geez#History_and_literature. dab (ᛏ) 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


The artical that was before your "Total Make-over" was much better! Why did you have to change the entire thing??TCWales 01:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What was better? There was less info on the language and more irrelevant stuff. Compare this article to some "serious" language articles with respect to information given and style used. Some points:
  • The Vijaya legend should have no place in a language article.
  • "going back to Lord Buddha's time" - irrelevant.
  • "attest to the long history of Sinhala spoken in S.L." - irrelevant; dates of inscriptions are given; language was completely different then.
  • Information on literature does not belong in a language article. Compare English language and English literature. Sinhala literature is so rich and extensive that it needs its own article.
  • Loanwords, especially those not pertaining to the fields of commerce, construction and the like, are not witnesses to "invasions" but to close peaceful interaction between two peoples/languages.
  • Helabasa, newspaper culture, Martin Wickramasinghe all have nothing to do with the Sinhala language but with literature.
  • "A first-class exponent of Sinhala was (...) Karunaratne Abeysekera." That's the kind of sentence you don't want to have to read in an encyclopedia!
  • "Brahmi script introduced in 6th century BC" - we don't know that at all. The "Vijaya" people may not have had the knowledge of an alphabet. All we can say is that the first inscriptions date from the 3rd century BCE. By then, the alphabet was there.
Cheers, Krankman 08:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loan words lists

The current article reads just like a linguistic article, I am all for it. Some of the contributers who are concerned about loan words should start

  • List of Sinhala loan words in other languages to update

Cat Sinhala and make it balanced RaveenS

[edit] "Elu Prakrit"

Clozapine,

please be patient, I am in the process of preparing a section on the very subject of different Sinhala language styles (which you are trying to put in here in a completely wrong place). Elu has nothing to do with Prakrit. Stop your ignorant vandalism! Krankman 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Crossed out insult. Sorry, it was a late night. Krankman 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop screaming like a baby. This is not your "pet project" in which only you get to add and remove things which you see fit. The addition is "which some scholars believe to be Elu." That does not mean Elu = Prakrit, it means that some scholars believe it to be so. So please get of your high horse 'kay?
Don't get personal, please. There should not be a place in the main section for an opinion that far off off any established facts; if you find we need to discuss this "theory", please at least give your exact source(s). Krankman 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Derivation of Elu words has as yet received but little attention at the hands of scholars. It is a study of much importance and requires great labour and research. The general practice is to derive nearly all the words in the language from Sanskrit, too often over looking the claims of Pali, which flourished almost on the frontiers of the original home of Elu, and consequently has a striking affinity to it. Modern Elu [vs ancient] is a development of the language brought over by Vijaya... who made it the vernacular of the land...From time to time persons from the mother-country visited the Island and many settled here...They acquired the Elu language with the utmost facility, it being then almost identical with their own....The language spoken by Vijaya and his men was undoubtedly Prakrit, of which many dialects were in existence in India at the time they took posession of the Island.... Hence in deriving Elu words, the endeavour should be to find out the corresponding words in the modern Indian vernaculars and, if possible, in original Prakrit and derive from those which present the closest affinity to Elu. - Abraham Mendis Gunsekara, A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language."
Now what was that you said Krankman?
"Elu has nothing to do with Prakrit."
Are you sure?
Do you think it was justified for you to throw a tantrum simply because I added in "which some scholars believe to be Elu" into the article? I don't think so.
Clozapine 10:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continued at Talk:Elu. Krankman 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Western" s>h

Please cite a source. Can't find any info on that. Krankman 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in any particular order:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamboja_Colonists_of_Sri_Lanka

(2) http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~sala23/abstracts/A2.txt

(3) http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Prakrit

(4) http://www.lankalibrary.com/books/sinhala.htm

(5) http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article17.html

(6) http://www.lankalibrary.com/books/sinhala6.htm

(7) Phonology of the Sinhalese Inscriptions up to the End of the Tenth Century, A. D. P. B. F. Wijeratne

s > h is also an Iranian feature. Clozapine 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any relevant information on the pages you have cited. As far as I know, optional alternation of s and h is a common feature in many Indian languages and not the Western ones in particular; concerning Sinhala, it is not a sound shift but an "optional change" (Geiger, Jayatilaka: Sinhalese Language and Literature, xxv). Iranian has no relevance for this question; if you doubt that, we should get an opinion from a qualified comparatist. I will however leave the article as it is because I'm growing tired. Krankman 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not my problem if you can't read. Clozapine

[edit] "Western" features

Wijeratne makes a good case against the "initial /v/ which developed into /b/" hence added disputed tag. Also disputed is "settlers from North-western India." Clozapine 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Eastern" features

Regarding "An example for an Eastern feature is the ending -e for masculine nominative singular (instead of Western -o) in Sinhala Prakrit" -- What are the examples? Clozapine 05:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing disputed tag

As far as I know there is no dispute to the fact that

"About the 5th century BCE, settlers from North-Western India reached the island of Lanka"

I couldn't find anything this talk page anyway. So unless anyone can clarify why it's disputed, I'm removing the tags. --snowolfD4 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed tags and brought the article back in accordance with the generally accepted statements of Wilhelm Geiger and others (see the References section). Cheers, Krankman 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/n/Talk%7ESinhala_language_f231.html"