Talk:Etymology of Assam

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Assam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in March 2012.

This article has been slapped with multiple tags. An attempt was made to address the issues in the talk page (see below) and the tags were removed. The tags were reinserted. From what I see from User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections, comments on the following would help immensely to resolve the issue.

• Is it inappropriate to consider the name of the region in other languages---namely, 'Asama', 'Asham', 'Asam' etc.---while considering the etymology of the name "Assam"? Are we constrained to just consider the use of the name in the English language?
• Comments on where POV statements exist in the article.
• Whether it reads like an advertisement, and how it can be improved.
• Whether there exists a systemic bias.

Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is multiple issues with this article.

• This article seems to be original research where inline citations are missing from most of lines supporting the claim. Facts with no two views are tried to manipulate e.g eastern boundary of Kamarupa is Dikkaravasini, Sadiya whereas here it is tried to locate somewhere else.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)
  • The Dikkaravasini assertion is wrong, and has been corrected, with reference. Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This article seems to be written like an advertisement where particular product is promoted in every line.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)
  • There is no advertisement. All competing theories are being presented, and all early mentions of the names are being listed, and all are sourced.Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutrality of this article need to checked as particular product or subject is consistantly promoted.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)
  • Without particular examples, this will not be accepted.Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is prone to editorial bias as developed by only one user and meagre contributions of other users are either deleted, if unsourced, without tagging for sources or reformated if sourced.
• Most of the facts are based on very old sources e.g E.A Gait, which is against the recommendations of Wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)
  • Complain there and ask for a ruling.Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absurd relationships are tried to be made like Asama = Assam, Asam = Axom.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)
  • All are being made according to what is found in the linguistic literature.Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are placed on article about the said concerns which should not be removed before discussion is over.

bbhagawati (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work on this article in ongoing. Most facts are not based on only Gait. In the "Asama" section, authors who agree with him are listed. Sources that claim the Sanskrit origin (like the Hemkox) are also cited. Dikkaravasini=Sadiya has been corrected with reference. Chaipau (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All objections have been heard and answered. Removing tags. Chaipau (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no advertisement. All competing theories are being presented, and all early mentions of the names are being listed, and all are sourced.

Why there is no proper mention of views which says Assam is an English word and sourced from Sankrit Asama, even mentioned slightly still in negative light as rejection by author excluding views which accepts the same.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• This is because "Assam is an English word" is cherry picking phrases out of context, as pointed out in the discussion in WP:RSN. : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without particular examples, this will not be accepted.

When all references are pointed toward same direction leading to exclusion of disputing views, this called as clear breach of neutrality policy.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• I have included all relevant references. : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complain there and ask for a ruling.

Its not for ruling but recommendations.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Well, ask for a recommendation there then : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All are being made according to what is found in the linguistic literature

I like see where Assam and Axom is mentioned in medieval literature.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

I have provided the references, from secondary and tertiary accepted works. Works that have been edited and vetted. Like that from Taher and others.: Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work on this article in ongoing.

But users from reliable sources noticeboard are invited to review the same as same was said to be updated.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Accepted: Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most facts are not based on only Gait.

Why Gait is mentioned at all when it is agreed on recommendations of reliable sources noticeboard to exclude him. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• For the correct attribution. Kakati and Sharma agree with Gait, but mentioning just Kakati would be giving him credit for the first objection, which is not correct. : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that claim the Sanskrit origin (like the Hemkox) are also cited.

It that proportionate to views of opposite school of thought. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• That is earliest view I could find. Neither Gait nor Kakati mentions who it was that first said Assamese was from Sanskrit.: Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All objections have been heard and answered. Removing tags.

Does giving single piece of reply ends discussions ?— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Well, then don't declare the end of discussion yourself, as you did earlier.: Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The precise etymology of the name "Assam" or Asam is not knownThis article was about etymology of Assam so there is no need to mention Asam in Lede. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• They are just different forms of the same name. : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of authors have associated the name of Assam with the Ahom kingdom

Number of authors also with associated with Sanskrit origins and English form.— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• That should also be mentioned, but I could not find linguists who have done this. : Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

called Kingdom of Assam in medieval times

Justification is needed because let alone Assam said tribe not able to set its foot beyond Manas river. Brahmaputra valley after said river is not reached, Barak Valley and rest of North East minus Tripura and Manipur are distant dreams. It is also not necessary that putting foot somewhere to chased an army weakened due to natural obstacles like forests and extreme rains makes rulers of said land. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Look at John P Wade's "A Geographical account of Assam" published 1805. I shall provide a reference.: Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Shan invaders called themselves Tai, they came to be referred to as Asam, Asam and sometimes as Acam by the indigenous people of the country. The modern Assamese word Ahom by which the Tai people are known is derived from Asam or Asam. The epithet applied to the Shan conquerors was subsequently transferred to the country over which they ruled and thus the name Kamarupa was replaced by Asam, which ultimately took the Sanskritized form Asama, meaning "unequalled, peerless or uneven"

In this lines Banikanta Kakati clearly said though term Asam is refered to invading tribe from east by tribal people which applied to small part of eastern Assam which was earlier part of Kamrup and said name of land was Sankritised as Asama by Aryans (maybe due to unsuitability) refering to its uneven surface against the plains of Samatata. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

• This means the name has been transformed and given a new meaning, which is what he means by "Sanskritisation". The eytmology of Asama is sourced to the tribal name. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More concerns will be forwarded after resolving the above

bbhagawati (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been pointed out at WP:RSN, you are wasting time. Don't do this.

Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is because "Assam is an English word" is cherry picking phrases out of context, as pointed out in the discussion in WP:RSN

Do you expect content of entire book as citation or what exactly matters. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

This was the topic of discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Assam.23Etymology and it was decided that "Assam is an English word" is cherry picking. The statement from which this phrase has been taken is from a statement about the Assamese language. As has been pointed out this phrase was first made by Grierson in LSI, and if you read the rest of the section, it is clear that "Assam is an English word" means "Assam is the English form of 'Asam'". So plucking that phrase out of that section, removing the context and then presenting it literally is cherry picking. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have included all relevant references.

Where is the references for usage of Assam and Axom in medieval literature or natively. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

You have to be more specific. Which section are you referring to. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ask for a recommendation there then

Recommendations are given once for specific topic not repeatedly.

For the correct attribution. Kakati and Sharma agree with Gait, but mentioning just Kakati would be giving him credit for the first objection, which is not correct.

Then why Gait is in citations e.g 24,25 and 26. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

Because Gait was one for the first to make those objections. Gait (1906) precedes Grierson's LSI by a few years. Kakati and Sharma largely agree with Gait that the origin is not Sanskrit. I suspect that the Sanskrit origin was first propounded in the Hemkosha, which preceded Gait (1906). But since Gait does not specifically mention this, I have refrained from attributing it to Hemkosha. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then don't declare the end of discussion yourself, as you did earlier.

If Discussion is made on no sources, is there any point in continuing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs) 05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are just different forms of the same name.

No original research please. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

This is now put up for comments. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should also be mentioned, but I could not find linguists who have done this.

That means all significant viewpoints are not included and it seem to unlikely to be included as other users are discouraged by removing, reverting edits without proper prior tagging. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

As I noted above, the theory of Sanskrit origin probably was first put forward in the Hemkosha. But since no author has identified the source of the theory that "Assam" originates in the Sanskrit 'Asama', neither have I done so, since that would be original research. But you will find that references are made to Hemkosha in the section. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at John P Wade's "A Geographical account of Assam" published 1805. I shall provide a reference.

In the book "A Comprehensive History of Ancient India" says

The kingdom of Assam or Kamarupa was ruled by the family of Pushyavarman. The last ruler in this line was Bhaskarvarman, who was a contemporary of Harsha.

This means the name has been transformed and given a new meaning, which is what he means by "Sanskritisation

That means inspiring word is related not Asama to the tribe. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

Sorry, I don't understand your objection here. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asama is sourced to the tribal name

Not source but inspiring word. Source words are somewhat homogeneous in meaning like Arya and Aryan. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

That means the same thing. Please look at the definition of etymology. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out at WP:RSN, you are wasting time. Don't do this.

They actually said i am wasting your time in return your wasting theirs that means indirectly they pointed at you (to be nice and safely as i am not so active there).

bbhagawati (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing multiple issues tag. In my opinion all issues have been resolved. If you do not think so, please specify where they are and I shall address them. A blanket tagging on the article does not help in improving the article. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be prepared as per decision made at RSN. This should be immediately complied to honour long lasting dispute. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned RSN was made in the context of

WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Chaipau (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Disputes are not resolved without two way sources and involvement of second person in dispute which is exactly the case with above mentioned DRN and most importantly DRN cannot go against the findings of RSN. I ask other users to look in detailed discussion done in Reliable Sources/Noticeboard in link give above. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to RSN which you provided, (this), has voluminous inputs from you. So your claim that you did not participate in the discussion is false. Just for the records, in that discussion one of the opinions was this. Chaipau (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed towards link provided by user Chaipau (i have mentioned DRN not RSN), not to mine and after all of the arguements are made, final decision is counted. I have asked other users to look at RSN discussion to see two sided discussion not one sided which case with DRN link. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 17:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared a section because better presented in Etymology of Pragjyotisha Kamarupa article. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is needed in the article to show that the political entities were named not Assam but Kamarupa/Pragjyotisha before the advent of the Ahoms. This provides a significant clue to the Etymology of Assam, which all writers have discussed in their works while discussing the etymology of Assam. You have also deleted the Assamese scripts, with the justification that there was no velar fricative, which is a mistake. First, the Assamese and the Latin scripts show just how the name was written, not how they were pronounced. Please revert the deletes and discuss here for a consensus before you remove anything. Chaipau (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just by omitting ancient period gives the idea of non linkage. If written as X then pronouched as X, simple. X is there only in Adi Sankrit not in later varieties like Vedic Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit and Apabhramsas, before entering in Eastern Assamese by Sanskritisation. Expecting a brief talk here, you revert it yourself then. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't understand what you are saying here. In any case, in none of the spellings any phoneme is assumed. Chaipau (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is AXOM. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only "Axom" appears in a quote from Taher. But no phoneme is implied there. Look at the context in which it is used. I have checked the Duttabaruah Bhagavata, and it is written with a স. Ask a Bhagawati how this is pronounced in the Sattras while it is being read. Chaipau (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give reference with quote for presence of VFV in medieval times. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is making such a claim. Chaipau (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do not use স here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The Assamese script was used to write Sanskrit too, where no velar fricative was intended. Chaipau (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for references. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall happily provide you references, but I can't make out what your objection is. I think I have addressed your objection the phoneme /x/. What are you objecting to? Chaipau (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i expected you have no references for usage of স in medieval times. Now consensus is made for its removal. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is in the text itself. Srimandbhagavat, skandha 2, H Dattabaruah and Co., Nalbari, pp-38 Chaipau (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote please. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any X/স in that quote. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is transcribed in ITRANS. Why don't you open up a Bhagavata and look at page 38? If you want I shall provide a scan in a few days time. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above lines are from original book, so if VFV is present in Asama, authors used X when writing in latin script, such as Axama but no one has done that. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the above lines, show that Sankardev, who transliterated the Bhagavata in the 16th century, used স. That should satisfy your needs for a reference and example of the use of স in the medieval times. Chaipau (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not the place to discuss how and when the voiceless velar fricative became common in Assamese. It could be during the first millenium or later. But this article does not deal with that. Chaipau (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sources to show that because VFV never found in later varieties of languages after adi Sanskrit. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you harping on the velar fricative, when it is not an issue here? How is it relevant to the discussion? All evidence are reported here for readers to make up their own minds without taking sides. Chaipau (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus made against usage of VFV i.e X/স in this article. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'x' is used just once in the article, in a direct quote (Taher). But his quote is used to date the Bhagavata, not to support the phonetics. So your objection is invalid. But if you are so allergic to the Taher quote, I can easily delete that can replace it with some other quote to establish the date of the Bhagavata. Chaipau (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing i can say that remove স alphabet from this article due to unavailabity of sources or i will do it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you the source (Srimadbhagavata, Nari Narayana Dutta Barua (ed), p.38). Why is this not acceptable to you? Chaipau (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the dispute resolution process. Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added text in the article to make explicit that there is no phonemic value in other scripts. This must be now acceptable to you. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your

is irrelevant here. This passage, originally from Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India, describes the derivation of the word "Assamese". In "It is based on the English word Assam...", the it refers to Assamese in "The word Assamese is an English formation..." in the previous sentence. Since it describes the word Assamese, it is not relevant here. Chaipau (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what important here is the fashion, in which word Assam was used. Say, who coined the term, for what purpose and exactly refers to what etc. I have given full sentence, to avoid cherry pick. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is about how the word "Assam" came into being, not how Assam is being used. Look up Etymology. It says: "Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. By an extension, the term "the etymology of [a word]" means the origin of the particular word." Chaipau (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are partisan? Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try to include sources for Asama, English Assam etc., importantly in neutral tone rather only rejection. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All possible theories are discussed here and given their own sections. Removing the partisan tag. Chaipau (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference of Peter Wade is under ambuigity. Goalpara was hardly ever occupied by Tai kingdom, hence source is unclear and unreliableभास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Ahom did not occupy the Goalpara region that is why Peter Wade is unreliable? Are you serious? Chaipau (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he mentioned Goalpara ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the multiple issues tags in because they are not stated in the talk page. Just because an editor does not agree with the article does not mean he can freely tag articles this way.

User bhaskarbhagawati tagged this article once before and all those issues were sorted out (Talk:Etymology_of_Assam#Multiple_tags_issues).

Chaipau (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this article for improvement, i believe it not adequate. Kindly don't remove tags yourself. Thanksभास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been improved multiple times. Just because you do not agree to what the findings are does not mean you can tag articles this way. Chaipau (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has issues, i tagged it for community attention for improvement.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a case of

WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Please specify the issues here. You cannot tag without specifying the issues. Chaipau (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Citation for consensus? The article has shown evidence of a Dutch map from 1661 that says "Assam". Chaipau (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is issue of isolated sources, e.g. Neog's interpretation of word 'Asama', which has other interpretations by different scholars.

• Citation? Chaipau (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is three competing theory regarding its origin, in contrast only one get priority.

• Not three, but four. All four are listed Etymology_of_Assam#Ha-com:_from_Bodo, Etymology_of_Assam#Asama:_from_Sanskrit, Etymology_of_Assam#A-Sham:_from_the_name_Sham and Etymology_of_Assam#A-cham:_from_Tai. Chaipau (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The origin issue is unresolved in academic circles in Assam, but article jumps on its own conclusion based on research by indiviual editor, thus acting as tool for social change, ignoring current consensus or absence of it.

• The article says "The origin of the name of Assam, a state in India is unclear". Wrong representation.

There are various other issues besides, which i will list here after clearing of above mentioned.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made frivolous and unsubstantiated claims. May of these claims are glaringly wrong. Please stop vandalizing this article. Chaipau (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try to reply in your space instead of editing other editors comment. For point one, Banikanta Kakati put forward medieval Asama as peerless, uneven etc. By referring to Dutch map, you accepted it as European usage for land, avoid analysing historical evidences by own, it amounts to OR. It adresses point number two as well. For point number three, i see you put weight on one theory only. For point four, i clearly see article takes a position. If i don't agree with your edits does not mean vandalism. Keep tags, so that other points can be included for wider view.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kakati (1941) repeats Grierson that the English "Assam" is an anglicization, and in turn "Asama" itself is a Sankritization of a native name like "Acham", meaning undefeated. He has no doubt that whatever be the actual original form, it is associated with the Shans. He writes unabiguously: "The word Assam was connected with the Shan invaders of the Brahmaputra valley".(page 1).
• The Dutch map is published. It is a fact, not an opinion, thus not OR.
• The position is the same as Kakati's that the English name is an anglicization of a native name which in turn has been Sanskritized and given many different meanings: uneven land, unequaled Ahoms, etc. What is not known for certain in the original name or form from which the Sanskritization occurred.

Chaipau (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B.K. gaves various meaning of 'Asama', dont't keep tagging one. He mentioned that irrespective of root, it changed its meaning in times. In modern and medieval period, it continue to change its meaning, which maybe related to topography. I agree that seed word is disputed. What i am saying is 'Assam' is used for land only and Sanskrit 'Asama' is not clear. You cannot claim that English Assam was used for tribe and Sanskrit Asama is not ambiguos. I don't think any scholar used that map for reference, so it equals to OR to retrieve conclusion on it. In conclusion, modern and medieval names should be used with caution, excluding opinions of lone sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem terribly confused. Chaipau (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't make out what you are saying. As far as map is concerned, it is one of the evidences that the English name did not start with the form "Assam", with a double-s. Gait is on record that the name had a single-s in the beginning. Englishmen also used "Acham". The map shows that "Assam" was used by the Dutch before the English did. Why do you want to ignore it? Chaipau (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not suppose to analyse primary sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to a newspaper article, which is a secondary or a tertiary source. Chaipau (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list few sources indicating the map.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to the right forum if you are disputing this. I shall gladly remove it, as it is not germane to the main list of events. Grierson has said that "Assam" comes from a local form. Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has issues, it needs major copyediting by others editors. If you don't have asked references, kindly don't remove tags.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]