Reconstruction talk:Proto-Iranian/dáca

@ZxxZxxZ, I wanted to get your thoughts on adding native scripts to Kermanic entries. Do you think all the forms listed should be written as دە and ده, respectively? How does Nastaliq come into play. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Nastaliq is not a different script, just a style of writing in some Arabic-script languages (especially Urdu). It shouldn't make a difference in the actual spellings either. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In scholarly works it is not customary to use Perso-Arabic script for Iranian dialects which does not have a standard alphabet, they normally use Latin, often mixed with IPA characters (do your sources use Perso-Arabic? Maybe I'm wrong. Dehkhoda and books written about such Iranian dialects/languages use Perso-Arabic, but I've not encountered this practice in academic writing, even Persian-language articles etc. --Z 07:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I've seen Latin, Perso-Arabic and even Cyrillic used. I know that Gazi for one has several printed works of poems, etc., in Perso-Arabic. It's also advantageous to use Perso-Arabic for the vowel ambiguity, allowing for unified Kermanic entries, ex. بز. --Victar (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So I assume an ambiguous Perso-Arabic writing system would work for most dialects. I think we should avoid introducing letters that are ot used in sources. --Z 10:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No new phonology is be introduced or reconstructed -- we're simply using the script that the actual speakers commonly use, like in the works of Darvish 'Abbas, as well as in many Persian language published papers. I'm wondering though if the Jewish dialects should be transcribed in Hebrew, as found in the Geniza manuscripts. --Victar (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is a paper that touches on Kermanic orthography. --Victar (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)