Talk:Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages

No rules given

This article basically states that the phenomenon is so difficult to grasp for both second language learners and “computers”. But it fails to give particular rules and not only examples. Why would anybody want to read this article then?!--89.13.145.37 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is to summarize existing knowledge about a topic. Now, two cases are possible:

1. The rules have not been published in the literature / reliable sources. In that case, they cannot be “synthesized” on Wikipedia.
2. The rules have been published in some reliable source, but the Wikipedia article has failed to include those rules. If this is the case, someone who has access to the literature ought to add them to the article.

If you think the latter case is true, can you point to sources with these rules? (Also, the article already does mention the rules:

One formalisation of this rule has been summarised as ə → ∅ /VC_CV. In other words, when a schwa-succeeded consonant is followed by a vowel-succeeded consonant, the schwa inherent in the first consonant is deleted.

If you find a better rule, please mention it so that it can be included in the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I know the purpose of Wikipedia and I get your point, fair enough, maybe I should look into the literature and edit the article. And for sure there's some variation between different varieties of a given language. But then one could just consider standard varieties. My concern was that this article is too “unconcrete” or too broad and not satisfactory. Large parts of the article can be summarized: “The writing system is not always accurate and sometimes schwas are written even if not spoken.” I think that this article needs some revision and I had hoped for people who know more than me about the topic to contribute. (About the “rule” it does mention: I didn't consider it a rule because it's too bad and more of a heuristic. But at least it's stated in a clear, formal way:) )--77.178.5.53 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tamil

Tamil is not a modern language 2A00:23C8:3893:A001:58C8:6E55:386:DF4F (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nepali

Nepali has a section but is not on the table _>>> Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

rationale

is that deletion to do with scripts in Sanskrit need to fit the meter? why would it be necessary? Stjohn1970 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)