Talk:Canarese Konkani

Comments

• This article has been unfairly tagged {{globalize}} and {{overcoverage}}. The tagger has cited too much stress on grammar as the reason. However, if one goes through the articles which govern these tags, one will realise that these tags are not meant for the purpose they were used for in this article. User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Kanara_.28Canara.29_Konkani. The tagger has also not given the reason on the talk page as the procedure requires. I strongly deplore the action.Imperium ^Caelestis 18:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• You should give some time for people to reply :) . I think it would be better to discuss rather than put up tags again:

1. The grammar part is given undue coverage, which is not needed for an article of this type. I have taken the FA Tamil language as a standard. Sections on Script, Konkani in Schools, Konkani organisations and Language structure are too long, and may need to be branched out to another article.
2. It would be best if we wait and see what happens to a discussion going on regarding the fate of this article itself. Yes Michael? •^Talk 06:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I share your joy at the outcome of yesterdays match :). Having said that I shall myself tag the article as too long as I too find it so and I inadvertently deleted it last night IST . I suggest all discussion on this article be moved here rather than our individual user pages.Imperium ^Caelestis 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad if you could copy-paste the comments on my talk page to here. Also, I request you to leave out a note at WT:IN, asking other users to comment.  Done I will be quite busy for some days, so pardon me if I do not reply promptly. Good luck, and Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the map is inappropriate. Maps are generally prepared by another procedure. Got to go now, don't have too much time to explain! Yes Michael? •^Talk 13:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• user 122.169.69.84 your feedback is welcome. I suggest you create a username on Wikipedia. Helps to make communication and contribution to the article easier. The English like script used for writing Konkani is called the Roman script Romi lipi. The tables will be converted into IAST for general understanding. To serve as a transliteration tool is however, beyond the purview of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperiumCaelestis (talk • contribs) 11:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW thanks indeed for modifying the tableImperium ^Caelestis 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Review

Continuing the thread on Talk:Konkani language.

I do tend to write tersely at times; it is a shortcoming of mine. I do wish that you would acquaint your self with - all policies. Consensus is not needed for deleting unverified facts and original research. Imho, you would best be served by looking to learn how to write better articles than for policy/guidelines about disputes, etc. Until your article reaches a certain state of quality such as GA/A class/FA, the slow process of consensus is not mandantory.

The point is - you made a bold foray in introducing a whole new set of information which is contentious as already apparent from above. Your slugfest point is well taken - however, it is in the Bhanap community's best interest that any article be as accurate and unchallengeable as possible, and for that reason I would be willing to play the devil's advocate.

My aim was to tell you that the good will towards your editing notwithstanding, there are serious issues you need to tackle in improving this article, among which are proper referencing, what is encyclopedic and what is not, etc. Some are glaringly obvious to all but not you as you are yet to gain the experience - it will come in due course of time. The onus is on you especially since as many references you are adding are offline, not easily available and therefore not verifiable.

So, between you and me, as per your request from seasoned editors, I propose that you and I carry out a preliminary critical examination to resolve all issues which I have learnt by experience to date. Once these are sorted out then the article would be able to better able to withstand scrutiny by others. The style may be "military" but it would be honest and forthright.

If you concur, I will be willing to help out. If you have reservations, let me know. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I submit that my articles have indeed rocked the boat. That the Konkani language article and the talk page look like a propaganda war page is perturbing. Especially when compared to the Tamil language article. Your criticism is most welcome and much needed. I just finished writing four articles Konkani phonology, Konkani script, Konkani Language Agitation in addition to this one and I request you to critically examine them as well. warm regards Imperium ^Caelestis 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

#1 - LEAD

Read WP:LEAD & try to achieve all its requirements.

Problems prima facie:

• Lead states "it is one of the official languages...etc, etc". It is Konkani & not Canara Konkani that is one of India's official languages. Please correct the grammar so that it is not misconstrued. Done
• Lead requires all material of sections to be fairly represented. You have facts not found explicitly in section. Move them there.

comments

in discussion with user Aog hac 2z for the lead as he has certain reservations.Imperium ^Caelestis 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• The sections need to be summarised in the lead.

Please attempt this first before we go ahead.

AshLin (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Still pending. But we can wait until sections are in much better shape. AshLin (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

#2 - Segregate footnotes from references

You have too many notes amongst the references. List out the references seperately. In the ref based citations, please give the short reference, with page numbers. I have done one to show you how. It will help the reader differentiate.  Done

• Please include ISBNs in references.  Done (no isbn for old literature)
• Is p. 589 in the first reference (Whitely) the total number of pages or the page where the information is mentioned. Only the latter is relevant and must be provided for verifiability.

AshLin (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Refs 17 & 18, 19 & 21 are identical. Use ref name to reduce the duplication. AshLin (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Done
  • Use a cite template for <ref name="Issues">ISSUES OF LINGUISTIC MINORITIES, Language Use in Administration and National Integration, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore</ref>. Why the capitals?  Done
  • Why do certain refs not show the yearof publication? Without this the minimum information needed for a refence is missing - title, author, year of publishing, publisher, place of pbnlication (where available). AshLin (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC) DoneImperium ^Caelestis 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

#3 - Use cite templates for all refs

Great that you segregated refs from footnotes.Now the refs themselves require improvement. Please use cite templates for all references - {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} or {{cite encyclopedia}} refer. DoneImperium ^Caelestis 12:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

AshLin (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

#4 - Infoboxes are for summary information

The infobox is littered with long notes for Religion & Writing System. Move the material into the main sections and give summary there. You may add (see text) as a closing phrase. AshLin (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Done (reduced image size and deleted additional info.)

Oops, my bad - that should have been "Region". AshLin (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

thought as well. typo error overlooked. :) Imperium ^Caelestis 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Still pending. AshLin (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

#5 - sections need re-organising

The sections are badly organised. For example, all history material must go into history - rename it simply as "History". Reduce the subheadings. Let there be three sections - History, Language, People. Move all subsections into the appropriate section. AshLin (talk)  Done (reorganised mishmash and deleted redundant info)Imperium ^Caelestis 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks better but the sections suck big time. We need to improve them one by one. AshLin (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the sections now. They had a run at the abbatoir. lean enough?? Imperium ^Caelestis 06:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

#6 - WP:NOTLINK#LINK

WP is NOT a linkfarm or a directory.

Please delete section "Konkani organisations in Karnataka and Kerala". Similarly, keep the most important information in "Media and Arts" by converting it into meaningful, referenced prose and delete the lists. If you wish you can make lists such as List of Konkani language films later on (there are seperate guidelines for lists). Merge all these into "Konkani culture". However, this section should not be about Konkani culture per se, but about the use of Konkani language in culture, important events, impacts, etc. All this should be well-referenced of course.

AshLin (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

pruned to your liking. all meat sans feathers. Imperium ^Caelestis 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

#7 - Eliminate content picked up from unreliable sources

Community websites are not acceptable to Wikipedia when it comes to picking content of academic quality. Please eliminate content that has been attributed to these:  Done

1. ^ "Our Karnataka". Konkani in Kannada script. Open Publishing. 6 May 2010.
2. ^ "Mangalorean". Konkani in Roman Script. Open Publishing. 5 March 2011.

Specifically, these point to the 'Dialect Variation' table. ¬ Aog ^{hac 2z} | 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

comments added {{fact}}Imperium ^Caelestis 17

52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Propriety of name of article

Thanks for taking the lead on this @ User:AshLin. First and foremost, I want to question the legitimacy of the term 'Canarese Konkani' and its proposed Konkani translation 'कॅनरालॆं कॊंकणि'. Is there such a term as 'Canarese Konkani' that one would find in linguistic journals and books on the linguistic study of the Konkani? Secondly (and this is the most important point I want to make), where did you pick the term 'कॅनरालॆं कॊंकणि' up from @ User:ImperiumCaelestis ? The way 'कॅनरालॆं कॊंकणि' has been portrayed in the article, it appears that it is a established term used by linguists to describe Konkani spoken in the Canara region. It gives readers the impression that it is a common term used by linguists to describe all dialects of Konkani spoken in coastal Karnataka. I am guessing User:ImperiumCaelestis came up with that term. Could you shed some light on that, please? Also, I am concerned whether that term is grammatically correct. Shouldn't it be कॅनराचॆं instead of कॅनरालॆं ?  Done (changed definition and spelling)Imperium ^Caelestis 07:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the article created talks about Kanara Konkani. Then, why are Konkani dialects from Kerala included? Typically, Kanara region strictly includes the coastal regions of Karnataka (and to a certain extent, northern regions of Kasargod district which were historically part of South Kanara but are now part of the state of Kerala). Konkani dialects spoken in areas like Ernakulam and Cochin do not fall under the 'Kanara' region. Why are these dialects clubbed together with Kanara Konkani? This point eventually boils down to the previous points I'd made on the main Konkani language talk page : Where would you draw boundaries? And this is precisely why I suggested that the Kanara Konkani article appears to be an article that has been written primarily to portray exclusivity from Goan dialects (May I reiterate that your intentions were genuine and pure @ User:ImperiumCaelestis. I'm merely telling you how a novice reader reading the article may decipher the article's content). Signed | Aoghac^2z | 19:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To be absolutely honest, I am not so academically knowledgeable about these issues, so I cant with authority opine one way or another. My point here was only to remove the MOS, style issues. The facts will need to be discussed between all the editors. Since this correctness of name concerns the article as a whole, mention of article name just happens to be in the lead, I am hiving it off in a different section. AshLin (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We're back to square one. As said in aamchigele, chār āṇe kunkaḍ bār āṇe māsōlu!! Aoghac^2z , please rest assured that we will do this in a phased manner. I know this article requires editing and I had just begun working on it under the guidance of User:AshLin. Let us not get into hair splitting discussions, and make this article politically correct, and then merge it into the Karnataka Konkani article provided Nijgoykar agrees to stay within civil limits. Solicit your help in this endeavour.Imperium ^Caelestis 19:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that outlining the scope of this article takes precedence over attempting to rectify Manual of Style, at this point. This is what I suggest:

• Phase 1 - Thoroughly define the scope of this article, its content boundaries etc. Clean up this article based on the scope.
• Phase 2 - Revisit references and sources. Eliminate content attributed to unreliable sources (examples include community links such as ourkarnataka.com etc.)
• Phase 3 - Work on Manual of Style.
• Phase 4 - Weigh merge options.

What do you guys think? Signed | Aoghac^2z | 19:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

phase 1 : Do yoy agree on the article being written on the lines of Brazilian Portuguese. Go through the link and let me know.Imperium ^Caelestis 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese has a lot of issues - mainly Original Research and absence of or bogus references. It can't be taken as a standard. Signed | Aoghac^2z | 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues revisited

I want to take this moment to revisit the issues I had highlighted in the original post of this section. On the basis of my recommendation, the author of this article has changed the translation of the article topic to reflect correct grammar ( from कॅनरालॆं to कॅनराचॆं ); however the primary issue I'd highlighted above still persists: What is the academic relevance of this name (कॅनराचॆं कॊंकणि)? Which Konkani linguistic organizations use this term as is? Would you find this term in any of the academic journals? Using this term and listing it out in 4 different scripts on the very first line gives the readers a very wrong impression that this is an academic term used in linguistic circles.

Lastly, I have had no response on the relevance of Kerala Konkani dialects in Kanara Konkani. As I'd highlighted previously, the Kanara region is strictly confined to the coastal regions of Karnataka. Regions like Cochin and Ernakulam are WAY outside the boundaries of the Kanara belt. Kerala Konkani dialects cannot be included in this article as long as the article is named 'Canara Konkani'. ¬ Aog ^{hac 2z} | 15:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

awwww, c'mon Aoghac2z we've already concurred on the merging or Canara Konkani and Karnataka Konkani. Let us discuss the opening statement for the merged article once the page is merged. Given the current circumstances, it looks good as is.

as for your second part, Konkani speakers in Kerala belong to three major communities, the GSB's, the Kudumbis and the Catholics.

• The GSBs of Kerala were part of the ninety six families (śeṇvi) that originated from Salcette (check the link on the article for verification) and owe allegiance to the Parthagali Matha in Udupi.
• The Konkani speaking Catholics of Kerala identify themselves as Mangalorean Catholics and owe allegiance to the Diocese of Mangalore.
• I am in the process of getting information on the Kudumbis of Kerala. Imperium ^Caelestis 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What does merging Canara Konkani and Karnataka Konkani have anything to do with the issues I had raised above? Before any merger happens, you would ideally want to fix the issues that persist at the present. As for the reasoning you provided for the Kerala Konkani speakers, using the very same logic, one could say that Kanara Konkanis should be merged with Goan Konkanis because most Kanara Konkanis have their Kuladevatas in Goa. See what I'm trying to get at? Besides, once you merge Canara Konkani into Karnataka Konkani, there would be no room for Konkanis in Kerala by virtue of the very name of the article. ¬ Aog ^{hac 2z} | 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

māggiri tuñci sāṅga kal kōrcẽ (state your suggestions). Merging Canara Konkani and Karnataka Konkani into the Konkani language article will result in one behemoth of an article and will not be in line with Wikipedia's line of brevity. Language structure, dativisation and lexicon considered, the Karnataka dialects and Kerala dialects are similar. Imperium ^Caelestis 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Narayan Govind Kalelkar classifies Konkani dialects into 3 groups:

• Northern Konkani: Dialects spoken in the Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra with strong cultural ties to Marathi; i.e. Malvani
• Central Konkani: Dialects in Goa and Northern Karnataka, where Konkani came in close contact with Portuguese language and culture.
• Southern Konkani: Dialects spoken in the Canara region(Mangalore & Udupi) of Karnataka which came in close contact with Tulu and Kannada.

On the other hand, George Cardona classifies Konkani dialects into the following groups:

• Goa Hindu Konkani: Spoken all over Goa with minor variations.
• Southern Saraswat Konkani: Spoken by Saraswat Brahmans of coastal Karnataka and Kerala.
• Bardes Christian Konkani: Spoken in northern parts of the Old Conquests of Goa.
• Saxtti Christian Konkani: Spoken in southern parts of Old Conquests of Goa.
• Karnataka Christian Konkani: Spoken in coastal districts of Karnataka.

Different linguists classify Konkani dialects differently... I don't have access to S.M. Katre's book Formation of Konkani, but I'm pretty sure he has classified them differently too. Taking George Cardona's classification as an example, we come to realize that although the Kerala Konkani dialects of Saraswats falls in the same group as that of the Kanara Saraswats, the Kanara Christian/Catholic dialects belong to a whole different group. All of this boils down to the simple fact that these classifications are purely based on linguistic grounds, not on geographical grounds.

Now, when you name your article's title as 'Kanara Konkani', or 'Karnataka Konkani', the classification becomes geographical, not linguistic. As this article stands today, you are including the Mangalorean Catholic dialects in this page too, which according to George Cardona belong to a separate dialect groups, distinct from Southern Saraswat Konkani. You would then argue that Mangalorean Konkani belongs to the very same region... but then that would mean that Konkani spoken by communities in Ernakulam and Cochin must be disregarded. As for your statement, that Language structure, dativisation and lexicon considered, the Karnataka dialects and Kerala dialects are similar, could you please provide a source that would corroborate your statement? Based on George cardona's classification, dialects spoken in Karnataka do not belong to one homogeneous group.

The way the article stands right now, it appears that the classification you're going by is: Goan dialects vs. non-Goan dialects. In that case, the most appropriate title for this article would be 'Non-Goan Konkani'. However, in my eyes, such a title would be quite immature.

As far as merging sections from this article into the main Konkani language article, I will tell you my opinions:

• The main Konkani language article is about a LANGUAGE. Therefore, that article must contain information on ALL dialects of Konkani, as a language. Right now, that article has a lot of content that should ideally belong to other articles... sections such as Konkani script/Alphabet or Varnamalha (which hogs up a major portion of the page), Konkani-Marathi dispute, Konkani language agitation etc. If brevity is a major concern, one would do justice to the article, by keeping these sections quite terse and concise, whilst moving significant portions of that content to their relevant pages.
• A major portion of this article (Canara Konkani) must be included in the Konkani language article.. because the Konkani language article is about a language.. and it must include relevant information on all dialects of the very same language. Having the main Konkani language article cater primarily to Goan dialects (or specifically to the Antruz dialect), whilst ignoring other dialects is quite un-encyclopedic.
• If you weed out unwanted sections from the main Konkani language article and put them in their right place.. AND move significant portions of this article into the main Konkani language article, I do not think we would be pumping bullets into its skin of brevity.

¬ Aog ^{hac 2z} | 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I laughed my guts out at your last line; very well put. I am in total agreement if the the script part is struck off we could insert information with regards to other Konkani dialects. I concur with your point on the un-encyclopaedic part. Could we also get a new map to include coastal Karnataka and Kerala through proper channel?? you have my undivided support in this endeavour. State your plan of actionImperium ^Caelestis 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Aoghac2z whoa whoa whoa cowboy!!! I just read your comment (move significant portions of this article into the main Konkani language article). Read User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Exactly.21. He is extremely protective about that article. My experience with territorial creatures tells me that the howls are not a bother; it's the seldom bite part that should concern me. I wouldn't want my contributions to do a Kalpana Chawla. Please liaise with him. If I do it, rest assured it will be pruned off with an original research cherry topping. I don't mind being bold et al, but I already have my hands full at staving off Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Comments_on_talk_page Imperium ^Caelestis 22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main Konkani language article is not owned by User:Nijgoykar. Any changes and edits that will be done to that article will be done through the proper channel: through consensus and discussion. What I have proposed here, will be proposed on that page's talk section too. I'm assuming my proposition will receive resonance and therefore we will be able to successfully merge significant portions from this article into THAT article. You do not need to be worried about the aforementioned user. There is never any page ownership ascribed to any Wikipedia. ¬ Aog ^{hac 2z} | 13:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across your comments in the irrelevance of the script part on the Konkani language page. I also saw subsequent comments. The majority opinion seems in favour of a traditional wedding feast with flatbread, rice, lentils, dry vegetable, veg. gravy, pickles, papad, buttermilk, maDganne strewn on one banana leaf. Not many people have found buffet appealing. However, lets give it a second shot :) Imperium ^Caelestis 14:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Language template

I have added the "Indian English" template. Please make certain that all the spellings are Anglicized, as Indian English uses British spellings. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Done Imperium ^Caelestis 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The name 'Kukna' is misleading

Kukna refers to the dialect of Saraswats of Kerala and Karnataka. It does not include the dialect of the Mangalorean Catholics. See the Venn diagram under 'Marathi-Konkani languages' article. Kukna has several distinguishable features like elision, end vowels, the sounds 'ja' and 'cha' instead of 'dza' and 'tsa', etc. Please rename the article to 'Canara Konkani' or remove references to Mangalorean Catholic Konkani, which is actually similar to Bardez dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed the dialect of Mangalorean Catholics

There were several issues with the original article. The dialect of Mangalorean Catholics was included and the language was called Kukna. Kukna is the dialect of the Saraswats only. Please see the glotto codes for the two dialects - Kukna has http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/kukn1238 and Mangalorean Catholic has (mang1376). Mangalorean Catholic dialect is similar to Bardez dialect of Goa and the two have been grouped together. There are further inconsistencies with the article.

1. There is no link showing 'Canarese Konkani' as a separate language. The two links given in the first line don't point to anything meaningful.

2. While referring to the two dialects, a line goes like this "There is a slight difference between the Konkani dialects spoken by the Christian and the Hindu communities. They are, however, mutually intelligible". The source of the article is stated to be http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ijsl.1978.issue-16/ijsl.1978.16.77/ijsl.1978.16.77.xml. However the content of that article is in total contradiction with the given line. In fact Miranda says:

"In South Kanara, I have often come across Konkani Hindus and Konkani Christians speaking to each other in Kannada or Tulu. Although there is mutual intelligibility between the Hindu Konkani and the Christian Konkani dialects spoken in South Kanara, when the speakers are proficient in Kannada or Tulu they can communicate with greater ease in one of these languages by eliminating 'code noise'. Konkani speakers are likely to find themselves in such a situation also in other areas. Of course, ease of communication is not the only concern involved. The use of some other language might be more appropriate under the circumstances."

Further he adds:

"Hindu and Christian dialects are considerably different from each other also in the Kanara districts. It should be noted that the Konkani Hindus in the Kanara districts migrated there about two centuries before the Christians. Hindu dialects in the Kanara districts show noticeably greater signs of Dravidian influence than the Christian dialects. This is not surprising since the Konkani Hindus have lived there much longer than the Konkani Christians. The Hindu dialects in this area have also retained several archaic features (such as Middle Indo-Aryan geminates in certain environments).19 The Christian dialects, on the other hand, having been isolated from Goa for , a shorter period, show closer links with the Goan dialects and share several common innovations."

Nowhere does Miranda state that the difference is slight. He also says that the Mangalorean Catholic dialect is closer to that of the Goans.

3. There are plenty more differences. "Come here" is given as "hanga yo" which is true with the dialect of Saraswats but not the Catholics. The Catholics say "hanga ye" just like the Antruzis and Bardeshkaris of Goa. All the differences between the dialects and the all the commonalities that the two dialects share with their Goan sister dialects (Antruz/Bardez in case of Catholics and Saxtti in case of Saraswats) are hidden. For e.g

a. The Antuz, Bardez and Mang.Cath. dialects don't show elision in connected speech. Canara Saraswat and Saxti dialects do.

b. The -che suffix is more common in the first three dialects mentioned above. It is mostly -gele in the last two.

c. Alveolar affricates are present in the former but not in the latter.

And so on.

If Mangalorean Catholic dialect is to be included, mention the differences between the two dialects. Or drop all references to 'Kukna'. Otherwise this article is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.17.3 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of removing all references to it they should be added back with these caveats Rbnmathias (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Moved article

Ethnologue Kukna, [kex], is a Bhil language, not Konkani. (They're confused too. The classify it as southern, but on the map show it as northern. Those are two different dialects that go by the same name.) Glottolog merges Kukna [kex] with Dhodia, a Bhil language. The Indian census results for 'Kukna' are also Bhil, not Konkani. I have therefor moved the article to 'Canarese Konkani', and made 'Kukna' a dab page. Please don't move this article back under the name 'Kukna' unless we first disentangle its various uses. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)