This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 15 April 2008 (→Mundhum: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:39, 15 April 2008 by Johnbod (talk | contribs) (→Mundhum: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hello, Vishnava, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Agathoclea (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Mundhum
Hi Vishnava, thank you for adding the extra information. Everything looks great, especially the newly-added information:
- The Mundhum extends beyond religion, serving as a guide for culture, ritual and social values. Versions of the Mundhum vary amongst the various Kirat tribes, serving as each tribe's distinctive culture and framing their social identity and unity in relation to other tribes and peoples.
which really helps to explain the topic.
Keep up the good work!
« D. Trebbien (talk) 04:34 2008 April 11 (UTC)
Re: Camling phonology table
It appears that Circeus has made some changes to Camling language to try to fix the table. Is the way it looks now the way you would like it to appear?
« D. Trebbien (talk) 03:02 2008 April 12 (UTC)
Mundhum
Where in the Gurung source does he actually say anything to support:"The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia"? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've no doubt the language group & some aspects of the culture pre-date Vedic times, but 2,500 years is a very long time, and your claim is that the exising book/books are that old. They may reflect elements that old, but I suspect it can't really be supported that the current form(s) go back anything like that far. I know a little bit about the Rai & Limbu from time in Bhutan, & I doubt that without a full-time Brahmin-like caste consistent oral tradition would be possible over that period. And if it were, all languages change, so the original, like the Vedas, would be incomprehensible to modern speakers, which seems not to be the case. I would suggest the claims are softened, to something like "reflect beliefs and cultural traditions from pre-Vedic times...". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- But you say: "The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia." which is a good deal more than that. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, although I dislike "encompasses" in any context; "covers" is better, no? - and shorter, which matters in DYK. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- But you say: "The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia." which is a good deal more than that. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)