Talk:Sinhala language

How to use "Sinhala" and "Sinhalese" appropriately on Wikipedia
"Sinhala" can be both a proper noun for the language, as well as an adjective for the language. "Sinhalese" can be a proper noun for the people, as well as an adjective for the culture, cuisine, etc. Although most other languages and peoples use the same name for both in English, Sinhala is not unique in being an exception to this trend. As such, it can be confusing to know when to use each word correctly. Outside of Wikipedia you are free to ignore these guidelines. All other English names for this language (of which there were many) are now obsolete.

When to use "Sinhala"
Use "Sinhala" whenever referring to the name of the language as spoken today. Any references to the language which span any period after 1948 (Sri Lankan independence) should also use "Sinhala". The writing system is called "Sinhala script" (and the Braille system is "Sinhala Braille") because here "Sinhala" is referring to the language, not the people.

When to use "Sinhalese"
Use "Sinhalese" when talking about the people or their culture. Do not use "Sinhalese language" as it means "the language(s) used by the Sinhalese people", of which there is only one native one: Sinhala. For historical references entirely before 1948 if the name of the language is not a compound name (qualified by another word), use "Sinhalese", as the name "Sinhala" hadn't yet entered English as a non-foreign word. See below for when to use "Sinhala" vs "Sinhalese" in compound names, e.g. Medieval Sinhala (7th–12th century CE), which is entirely before 1948 but still uses "Sinhala".

Compound language names
If the name is being used as a noun adjunct (like an adjective), use "Sinhalese", e.g. "Sinhalese Prakrit". If the name is being used as the main noun, use "Sinhala", e.g. "Proto-Sinhala", "Medieval Sinhala", "Modern Sinhala".

Other
When the title of a book or other resource names the language, use the name as it appears without modification, regardless of the year it was published. So, "Let's Learn Sinhala" (2003) and "Teach Yourself Sinhalese" (2000) should each appear as written and not be standardised to "Sinhala" even though both books were first published after 1948. The same goes for material quoted from books, magazines, websites, speeches, etc. It should always be presented as the author or speaker presented it themselves, even if they did so inconsistently.

Decision tree

 * If in a title: write it exactly as it appears, e.g. "Let's Learn Sinhala", "Teach Yourself Sinhalese"
 * else if not about the language: Sinhalese, e.g. Sinhalese people, Sinhalese food
 * else if in a compound language name:
 * if the name is a noun adjunct: Sinhalese, e.g. Sinhalese Prakrit
 * else if the name is the main noun: Sinhala, e.g. Medieval Sinhala

Danielklein (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * else if entirely after 1948: Sinhala, e.g. Sinhala from 1948 to the present
 * else if partially after 1948: Sinhala, e.g. Spoken Sinhala from 1925 to 1975
 * else if entirely before 1948: Sinhalese, e.g. Written Sinhalese under British rule from 1815 to 1948


 * The more native-sounding term which Sri Lankans tend to prefer is Sinhala, since it doesn't have the English suffix -ese. Geckosurprises737 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanakhan 2402:E000:424:6A74:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

6th century BC dates based on dubious 6th century BC brahmi claims
Relevant text from the Tamil brahmi page which addresses this fringe theory:

Sri Lankan nationalists have used this and other fragments of Black-and-Red Ware and Red Ware with Brahmi characters to state that Brahmi was invented on the island and from there it migrated north into the Indian subcontinent. This theory has been criticized by Harry Falk – a scholar of Brahmi and other ancient Indian scripts. First, states Falk, the Coningham team has admitted later that they did not use the carbon dating correction necessary for the Southern hemisphere and used the calibration curves for north Pakistan. Second, the Sri Lankan teams also erred when they deployed a "mathematical trick" whereby they conflated the contested date of lower strata that lacked inscribed shreds with the upper strata where the shreds with Brahmi script were found. According to Falk, a critical study of the feature differences between Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) Brahmi, Tamil Brahmi and Ashokan Brahmi suggest that "all the differences can only be explained once the Ashokan script is taken as primary and the two others as derivations". It is not scholarship that is behind the claims that Ceylonese Brahmi is more ancient and gave rise to Tamil Brahmi and Ashokan Brahmi, rather it is "regional chauvinism", states Falk.

There is no evidence of long distance trade from north India to Sri Lanka as early as 6th century bc, let alone the full establishment of civilisation in the Gangetic plains, and in particularly the Vanga/Kalinga regions. The inscriptions found are very similar to Asoka Brahmi, and the proposed 300 + years difference would result in more significant divergence if true. But we see no evidence of 300 years of evolution. These dates are dubious and cannot be stated as fact in this page. Metta79 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)