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 For historical references entirely before 1948 if the name of the language is not a compound name (qualified by another word), use "Sinhalese", as the name "Sinhala" hadn't yet entered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

• 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

Danielklein (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

Retroflex nasal in Sinhala

Re: "Sinhala's nasal consonants are unusual among Indo-Aryan languages for lacking the retroflex nasal /ɳ/ while retaining nasals in the other four positions."

"Retroflex" series in Indic languages, called murdhaja (murdhanya) in native grammer, is actually alveolar. Nontheless, this series contrast with the dental series just as a true retroflex series would. Sinhala DOES have the same five nasals of other Indic languages, unlike what--at least to me--is implied in the article [as of 16 mar 2025], verily: ම /m/, න /n/, ණ (alveolar/"retroflex") ඤ (palatal), ඞ /ŋ/.

Of these ඞ is limited to codas, which can be thought as weakened.

But න and ණ do occure in contrastive pairs: e.g. තණ (grass), තන (breast); කණ (ear), කන (infinitive of eat); වණ (chronic ulcer), වන (jungle);පැණ (question/riddle), පැන ( infinitive of jump); දෙණ (open coffin), දෙන (infinitive of give); වෙණ (veena), වෙන ( infinitive of be); ඇණ (nails), ඇන ( infinitive of thrust or maul);කැණ (infinitive of mine[verb]), කැන(a bunch of banana fruits) ; හණ (agave or similar source of fibre), හන (a brand[noun], as in the result of burning skin with a piece of hot metal)

Sinhala is a language with strong diglossia.The informal 'gloss' is much different from the formal 'gloss', which is gradually acquired through literacy education. It may be possible that spoken Sinhala in a sub-population that is not well educated has gradually lost the distinction between න and ණ, just as how the aspirated consonants have lost their aspiration in this setting.

But the received pronunciation from well educated sub-population should even today maintain the distinction between න and ණ. But recent research to back up my claim is lacking.

At least up until around 1960, there is evidence that this assertion is true:-- evidence which appear in the form of "Coates, W. A. and de Silva, M. W. S. 1960. The Segmental Phonemes of Sinhalese. University of Ceylon Review 18. 163–175." Wherein one can find a mapping of න and ණ to two discrete phonemes. The full list of phonemes from this article cited above is available in Phoible.

2407:C00:E007:B2D6:1:0:8408:1BA5 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Professor J.B Dissanayake' Encyclopedia of Sinhala Language disagrees with this view , and presses the fact that these retroflexes were lost and only exist in spelling. He even goes onto detail about rising factions amongst linguists and reformers who want to rid of these obsolete letter (however to which the book counters saying they are needed to different words when spelt i.e. පහන v. පහණ

Furthermore , there is barely any evidence these retroflexes were pronounced in the modern form of sinhala.

i am curious to see which sources suggest modern Sinhala ever pronounced these distinct sounds? Airyas (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The Myth of Sinhala Being a Vulnerable or Endangered Language

The Sinhala language is sometimes incorrectly believed to be endangered or vulnerable. This claim, however, is a myth not supported by linguistic data. Sinhala is spoken by over 17 million people, constituting around 75% of Sri Lanka’s population, and it is one of the country’s official languages. It is actively used in education, government, media, religion, and daily life.

The idea that Sinhala is in decline often arises from sociolinguistic concerns, such as the increasing use of English among urban youth, the popularity of “Singlish” (Sinhala-English hybrid speech), and the incorporation of loanwords from English, Tamil, and other languages. Some also point to a perceived erosion of formal literary Sinhala as a cause for concern. However, these phenomena are common across many world languages and do not indicate that Sinhala is endangered.

A language is considered endangered when it is no longer learned by children, has limited domains of use, or is spoken only by the elderly population. Sinhala exhibits none of these characteristics. It continues to be passed on to younger generations and enjoys institutional and cultural support. Both UNESCO and Ethnologue classify Sinhala as a “safe” language.

Source: සිංහල භාෂාව වඳ වී යාමේ තර්ජනයක් ඇත්ද? මෙන්න ඇත්ත! Chandler Vonhaght (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

An article talk page is for discussion and questions relating to the article, not for flatly posting information. Did you post this because you're suggesting that it be in the article? I don't believe we should have a section to debunk unspecified and unattributed rumors that a language that isn't endangered, and that the reader otherwise had no reason to think was endangered, is endangered. I might have a different opinion if rumors that the language is endangered were to become a prevalent social phenomenon amply covered in reliable sources, but this is just one source bearing the annotation "Nalaka Gunawardene's personal reflections on media, culture and society in Asia. NOTHING OFFICIAL about this!" My reaction is a big shrug along with the thought "Lots of people think lots of dumb things, every one of them doesn't warrant coverage and debunking on Wikipedia." Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)