Misplaced Pages

Orthography Question

Why is it that the letter hiun in the Misplaced Pages articles is almost always transcribed as w, and ts' as c'? For example, the transcription of the armenian word name is written "anown" or and goodbye as "C'tesowt'iown". Doesn't anyone else feel these to be incredible misleading transcriptions at least as far as pronunciation? "u" or "oo" would be much better replacements for "ow" and "iu" for "iow". KaraiBorinquen —Preceding comment was added at 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. All of those references should be removed and re-written using the International Phonetic Alphabet. Please see the Western Armenian language article for examples. Also see the Romanization of Armenian article. Only a few years ago, most computers couldn't display the characters from the International Phonetic Alphabet, and therefore latin characters were used to denote Armenian language sounds understandable to a broader audience. With the development of the Unicode standard and its ubiquity, this has changed and now the IPA may be used to precisely describe sounds in Armenian, rendering the ISO 9985 obsolete. Serouj (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all of you are misunderstanding some things. IPA is used to transcribe a language phonetically or phonologically. The ISO and Library of Congress transliterations are used to transliterate/romanize written Armenian, letter by letter. Since this is an encyclopedic article which uses academic sources, we use a transliteration from an official body used in academia. Phonetic/Phonological transcriptions are only needed for the relevant sections of the article. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My belief that the ISO transliteration for Armenian is outdated and impractical notwithstanding, the article as is is entirely misleading. Anyone without a prior understanding of the Armenian alphabet/language will read the pronunciations of these words to be something they aren't. In doing so it compromises the integrity of the article. The truth of the matter is that ւ is only practically used as a "w" sound for foreign words and names, and the rest of the time acts as a "u" modifier. It also provides the false perception that ու and յու are dipthongs and tripthongs when in reality they are only one and two letters, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.110.204.129 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of people speaking Armenian

The number of people speaking Armenian is 5.5 million according to the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, a trusted publication of linguistics. You can't always pull numbers from the internet where did you get 6.7 million from? You cannot make up these numbers, the most accurate way to get it is from a university publication book. So stop changing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.124.66 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source for the number: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hye The Ethnologue has the number as 6,723,840. The Ethnologue is used by academic linguistics. Also, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language has a copyright date of what 1998? Azalea pomp (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

READ CAREFULLY! "Population 3,399,903 in Armenia (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Population total all countries: 6,723,840." It's population not number of speakers! MosMusy (talk)

I did the country profile says: Armenia. 2,991,360, but the language article says: Armenian 3,399,903 in Armenia (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Population total all countries: 6,723,840. That is more likely implied speakers as the section is for the Armenian language. Their numbers don't quite add up though. The Ethnologue divides by language, not ethnic group. Ethnologue articles will often state: x number of ethnic group and y number of speakers for that ethnic group. Also, the Armenian diaspora would be larger than 6.7 million. In any event, a 1998 book would be outdated for the number of speakers. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

New Language Numbers Source Needed

I will have to check the newest version of the Ethnologue to see if they have new accurate numbers. The online version is an older version. Also, as nice as the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language is, it is 10 years old and thus the numbers would not be accurate for today. Azalea pomp (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ejectives

From what I've gathered so far, the Modern Eastern Armenian voiceless unaspirated stops are indeed glottalised, but the loudness of the ejective quality varies. In most dialects, including the standard, the glottalisation is barely audible, though relatively best in the affricates. The further you venture north in Armenia, the louder the glottalisation is. In Armenian dialects in Georgia, it is particularly clearly audible. But still, I have read that even the glottal quality of the Georgian ejectives is not perceived by everyone and they are often mistaken for simple voiceless stops. Personally, I can hear the Georgian ejectives clearly, as clearly as those in Amharic, but have trouble with the (standard) Armenian ones.

Generally, though, it is said that Caucasian ejectives are not as loud as ejectives in the languages of the Americas. Certainly, Mayan languages have clearly audible ejectives, from what I've heard myself.

The more notable ejectives of the northern Armenian dialects would not be surprising, given the proximity of, or even continued bilinguality in, Georgian. Ejectives are an areal feature - I have heard that they can even be found in Northern Kurdish (i. e., Kurmanji in Turkey) and Southwestern Turkish dialects, that is, in an area where Armenian was once widely spoken, in Ossetic, in Kumyk, and (in the central northwest of the Caucasus, in the general area of Vladikavkaz and Pjetigorsk) even certain Kosak varieties of Russian!

Whether already medieval Armenian had ejective stops is unknown, though at least if they were present in Middle Armenian, if not also Classical/Old Armenian (given its general high typological similarity to Old Georgian, especially in the phonological system), it might help to understand the Western Armenian consonant shifts. An ejective might become some sort of implosive before passing to a voiced stop (and since a preglottalised voiced stop sounds very similar to an implosive, I suspect this is what Beekes had in mind when he suggested that proto-Indo-European *D was in fact * in his introduction, and possibly elsewhere). It must be taken in account, though, that individual dialects exhibit various other shifts and mergers unlike those in the two standard dialects; so the whole matter is more complicated and I don't have the necessary overview of Armenian dialectology.

As an aside, the voiced quality of the Georgian mediae is not phonologically distinctive and can be missing or reduced/partial, much like in German, for example; the missing glottalisation and aspiration are already enough. Given that old voiced stops became unvoiced in Western Armenian, this might be a relevant observation. Since the voiced stops became aspirated voiceless stops, this might be the reason for the idea that they might have originally have been voiced aspirated stops.

If one knows about the Armenian ejectives and the Georgian system of occlusives that is not primarily based on the voiced/voicedlessness distinction, one understands Gamq'relidze's and Ivanov's glottalic hypothesis a lot better - or at least where Gamq'relidze draws his inspiration from. (I do not endorse the hypothesis, almost all the arguments for it do not hold water, though it may help understanding certain restraints on PIE root structure, there may be a few suggestive Italo-Celtic sound laws, and I can't understand why PIE *t is at the ends of words, though the glottalic theory doesn't really help either: going from what I know from Armenian, one should expect or even simply !)

I just noticed that unlike this article, Eastern Armenian does acknowledge the ejectives! What the ... Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes... This article needs to be updated to reflect the ejectives. Also, the Eastern Armenian language and Western Armenian language articles (as well as the article on Traditional Armenian orthography need to be updated to reflect the fact that in Classical Armenian ejectives likely did not exist (according to my investigations). Serouj (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I've heard, the Jerusalem dialect, which branched off very early and is therefore hard to classify (but usually under Western Armenian, I think), does feature ejectives. This seems to indicate that at the time of the separation of the Jerusalem dialect Armenian did have ejectives, so I would be cautious. Unless we find some good source with an explicit statement either way, we should be careful with claims about the precise phonetics of an ancient language. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic language#Historical sound changes mentions that Aramaic dialects in the Caucasus have replaced the emphatics with ejectives too, confirming the areal nature of the feature. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

No notice was placed here that this image has been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) This one too Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Other images used on this page may also have been nominated -- please check them all by clicking on them to see if there is a deletion notification on the image page. If there is, use the link that takes you to "this image's entry" to comment on the nomination for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian language history

• Arak29 Armenian Origins (Arm.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.184.197 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Armenian language dates to the early period of Indo-European differentiation and dispersion some 5000 years ago, or perhaps as early as 7,800 years ago according to some recent research." Very bold statement when the oldest attestation of Armenian dates to the 5th century AD. And the "some recent research" you refer to is a newspaper article!! I suggest re-editing that section for it to be a bit more believable. And please use some reliabe sources (WP:RS)!--Xevorim (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See: . The newspaper references that source from a peer reviewed academic journal, had you paid attention you would see that information contained in the citation.-- Ευπάτωρ 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article you refer to says the initial Indo-European divergence occured before 7,800 years. That's what you'd expect from a proto language. It does not say Armenian is 7,800 years old had you paid a little more attention to the article. And that does not change the fact that a newspaper article was used as a source. The newspaper article isn't peer reviewed on itself. Referencing doesn't work that way. You don't reference an article which references another article which reference a reliabe source. It just doesn't work that way.--Xevorim (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus, I have removed the bold statement and replaced it with something less POV and more realistic.--Xevorim (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that "the oldest attestation of Armenian dates to the 5th century AD." This was the century when the Armenian alphabet was developed. The Armenian languages was being spoken at least one millenium before within the first Armenian kingdoms. It is no surprise that a theory exists claiming that the divergence from Indo-European occurred about 3 millenia previously. Serouj (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved what you wrote downwards so it's easier for me to reply. No doubt that Armenian was spoken well before the alphabet was developed. However, there is no attestation of the Armenian language prior to the development of the alphabet. As for "how long ago was Armenian spoken" issue it is merely speculative. Speculations shouldn't be written as facts in an encyclopedia.--Xevorim (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "speculation" you mean "theory" then you are mistaken. You can include a theory of X in an encyclopedia without a problem. Just state, "according to research done by..." or "according to a theory by... the Armenian language branched from the Indo-European Y years ago." Serouj (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean a theory. It is mere speculation. No reliable linguistic book or article states that as a theory. By the way, do you realize how absurd it sounds that Armenian is 7800 years old. That would make it the oldest living language and that it remained for more than 6000 years without any evidence of existence till the 5th century AD. What would you think if you read such claims?! --Xevorim (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the claim isn't that Armenian is 7800 years old, but rather that the roots of the language branched from Indo-European 7800 years ago. Serouj (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

However, if you find a thoery on that issue from someone reliable (i.e. linguist (and not someone claiming to be a linguist)) you can go ahead and cite it as a theory.--Xevorim (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that any theory should be from a reliable source/linguist.Serouj (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The word for 'cow' in Latin should be 'bos', not 'bum'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kelly Jr (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Latin, it is the Umbrian word as the Latin bos is a loan from a sister Italic language. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarities betweeen Kurmanji and Armenian

I begin with the sentence: "I am Armenian." In Armenian: Es hay em. In Kurmanji: Es hay em. Could someone explain this? (In some places Kurds call Armeinans Hay, this is not the point here...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.149.107 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the first paragraph of the Kurmanji article and openly states being a dialect of the Kurdish language, but not much reference to being related to Armenian and it is correct though the Kurdish language is a member of the Indo-Iranian language family, but Armenian is categorized separately from Iranian.

Kurmanji: (Kurdish: Kurmancî called Bahdînî sometimes) is a dialect of Kurdish and it is spoken by almost all of the Kurds in Turkey and Syria as well as Kurds in Former Soviet countries and by Kurds in Lebanon. It also has a bit of speakers in Iraq and Iran. Whoever wants to support theories of the Kurds and Armenians are closely related, one has to examine the ancient history of the regions of Kurdistan settled by Hittites or Urartu peoples about 3,000 years ago, in relation to modern Armenia and Media in present-day Iran. The Kurds and Armenians fought each other in the Ottoman Empire, but it's widely reported in the Armenian genocide of 1915, Ottoman Turkish armies hired tens of thousands of Kurdish fighters to attack and kill Armenians in their homes or villages across the Eastern half of Turkey. Kurds and Armenians were adversaries, each group fought for power and autonomy and Kurds continue to do so in Turkish Kurdistan to this day, but unable to secede like their Iraqi Kurdish kin in nearby Iraq during the 1991 revolt against Saddam Hussein's brutal anti-Kurdish policies. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination of genetic relatedness, convergence and pure chance. After all, Armenian and Indo-Iranian (to which Kurmanji belongs) are related branches of Indo-European, even sharing some rather specific traits within the larger Indo-European family, and Armenian and Kurdish (as well as other Northwest Iranian languages) have been spoken side-by-side for centuries, probably millennia. They've always been in contact during that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people who identify as Kurds today and speak Kurmanji had Armenian ancestry (it would help to explain the ejectives in Kurmanji dialects), making Armenian in effect a substrate of Kurmanji, which could conceivably further the convergence of both languages.

Actually in Kurmanji, "I" is ez, not es (pronounced in Armenian, by the way). Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well put.-- Ευπάτωρ 22:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Armenian dialects

The article is missing some useful and informative details on a smaller group of dialects belonging to the Northern Armenian division of the Armenian language, but has developed outside of the traditional Armenian homelands (the Northern dialect was in the Caucasian mountain ranges in Republic of Georgia) after the first wave of ethnic Armenian refugees settled throughout Europe from the 10th to the late 18th centuries AD. About 5 dialects of Northern Armenian are said to exist and spoken by at least 100,000 Armenians in sporadic communities in Europe and North America. Here is the compiled directory I came up with:

• 1. Irlandhyren/Celtahyren - In Ireland, where only one known speaker has compiled a vocabulary listing for linguists in the 1990's and perhaps 100 or more fluent in the Irish version of Northern Armenian. About 5,000 Irish Armenians or Irlandehayes live in Ireland, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
• 2. Canadohyeren/Quebecehyeren - In Canada by 1,000 to 2,000 able to read or speak it in the country, plus a sub-dialect in the Armenian community of Quebec influenced by the French-Canadian dialects of French.
• 3. Norvegaehyeren/Vikingehyeren - Somehow, ethnic Armenians in Scandinavia and northern Germany established this kind of Northern Armenian, but less than 100 are known to continually use it, named for either Norway, Sweden or the Vikings of Denmark.
• 4. Romano-Armenian/Latin Armenian was established by ethnic Armenians living in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal under linguistic influences of the Romance languages, but not as heavily Latinized and about 500 fluent speakers remain.
• And 5. Aravesh or the Armenian American dialect is spoken by 200 to 300 Armenians living in the USA, mainly in the Fresno, California area as most 2nd and 3rd-generation Americans of Armenian heritage have lost contact with their ancestral language and adapted the English language.

I hope there could be additions of the Northern Armenian dialects in future edits of the Armenian language article, although less than 2 percent of the Armenian language is represented by the "third division" in contrast to the larger Eastern and more dispersed Western dialects. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Armenian dialects are located in the Armenian dialects area such as: Tbilisi (Havlabar quarter) and others: Nor Nakhichevan, Rostov-on-Don, Stavropol, Krasnodar, Dnipropetrovsk, Anapa, Maykop, Taganrog, Prymorsk, Novocherkassk, Dneprovskaya, Poland, Bukovina, Transylvania, Hungary. What has not been included are some other dialects of the Armenian diaspora. If you have academic sources for any of these include them. Are most of the Armenian groups from Ireland and Scandinavia settled from after 1900, surely not from the 1500s or 1700s? Azalea pomp (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Country list information has been reformatted based on a continuing Misplaced Pages policy discussion being conducted elsewhere. The summary of that discussion is that unrecognized "states" should be listed separately and in italics with a note that they are not recognized internationally. (Taivo (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Perfect. Thank you. Serouj (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenian language template.

I have created a new template (featuring St. Mesrobs) in hopes that it would do two things: eliminate the 'History of the Armenian language' template and create a visiually appealing link to other articles about the Armenian language. Any suggestions on how to improve the template, I'd be happy to receive ideas or feel free to modify it to improve it. I'd would be great if it was not removed, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Modify the History of the Armenian language template; don't create a new template that does the same thing... This article is in need of content, not a new template... So please try to focus on content. Serouj (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Orthography

Adding the Armenian orthography to the table of Indo-European cognates is not a good idea. Since the majority of people reading this don't know the Armenian alphabet, looking at the native orthography in a table where all forms should be equivalent is terribly distracting and obscures the issues rather than enlightening it. It is standard practice in historical linguistics to use transliterated forms in lists of cognates. That practice should be followed here as well. (Taivo (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Great point... I think also we should be using IPA. The examples with Armenian script should go in the Traditional Armenian orthography and Reformed Armenian orthography articles. Serouj (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I'll add links to Wiktionary directly from romanizations, if that's OK. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Diasystem

Armenian is a typical example of a diasystem, i.e. single genetic language which has two or more standard forms. This sould be explained here.  Andreas  17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling reform and standardization

According to this diff, spelling reform came after the standardization. It is still not clear if the spelling reform affected only Eastern Armenian or both. Also, if standardization of the language occurred in the 19th century, were ther two different standards created at that time? Since when have there been two different standard languages? If somebody knows the answers, they should be put into the articel.  Andreas  02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More dialects from Adjarian

Adjarian on his map and text mentions other cities and towns where Armenian was spoken, but does not give them a dialect grouping. I will try to find these and put perhaps a misc. dialects category for the table. Azalea pomp (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Add Arak29 Tools to Resource links

Classical<=>Soviet Orthography Converter http://www.arak29.am/index.php?pt=5 Etymology http://www.envisionarmenia.com/etymology/ Traditional Orthography Primer http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ Western Armenian Language Textbook http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Arak29 Tools to Resource links

Classical<=>Soviet Orthography Converter http://www.arak29.am/index.php?pt=5 Etymology http://www.envisionarmenia.com/etymology/ Traditional Orthography Primer http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ Western Armenian Language Textbook http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Arak29 Tools to Resource links

Classical<=>Soviet Orthography Converter http://www.arak29.am/index.php?pt=5 Etymology http://www.envisionarmenia.com/etymology/ Traditional Orthography Primer http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ Western Armenian Language Textbook http://www.envisionarmenia.com/moodle2/ 00:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinta (talk • contribs)

Many (most?) of those resources require an "enrollment key" and external links to closed resources are discouraged in Misplaced Pages. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Voxsusana, 28 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} How are you(formal) | Vonts ek (ո՞նց եք)

 Inch bes es  

Voxsusana (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3 questions: agglutination, Kipchak in Armenian, Armenian in Poland

I noticed that the text does not state agglutination, but in the categories agglutination is listed, and more then once Category:Agglutinative_languages. Also, the article alludes to the change but does not explain why. Agglutination is a main trait of Morphology. Is the sentence Morphologically SOV?

Armenian script was extensively used for Kipchak language, there was a whole Kipchak literature in Armenian script, should not that be noted in the article? Maybe other peoples also used the script? What about other Caucasus tribes, did any of them used the Armenian script? There were 300 languages in the Caucasus, but only 5 scripts. Many of those tribes are described as illiterate, but if they used Armenian script, that would not be true. For example for the church records - births, marriages, deaths etc.

There was considerable Armenian population in Middle Age Poland, but present diasporas does not show Poland. What happened with those Armenians? I would appreciate if somebody who knows would share their knowledge. Barefact (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Armenian script, this is already dealt with here: Armenian alphabet#Use of the Armenian alphabet for other languages.

re: Armenian population in Middle Age Poland, this issue is dealt with at Armenians and Armenian diaspora.  Andreas  13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Andreas, it helps, the Armenian alphabet#Use of the Armenian alphabet for other languages and Armenians_in_Poland are very good for my level. Still, what about the morphology of the language? Were the Kurds the only Caucasians who adopted the Armenian script? And Poland is not listed in the diaspora boxes. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Iranian theory

The Iranian theory is long outdated and no longer accepted by any mainstream linguist. Standard texts on the IE languages explain why Armenian was thought to be Iranian and how it was discovered actually to be its own branch. Citing linguists such as Franz Bopp (d 1867) as current support for the hypothesis is dishonest. Neither does Lehmann support it: "Armenian stands in the sphere of the Aryan-Balto-Slavic languages between Iranian and Balto-Slavic."

This minority theory that Armenian is a branch of Iranian cannot be presented as fact or as widely held. The NPOV policy allows us to state that specific scholars, who must be named, support a minority theory. The current edits violate this policy. If you wish to add further comments to the article please discuss them here. Further reversions without consensus will be treated as edit warring and may be the cause for a suspension of editting privileges.μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Iranian theory isn't even taught as an aside in historical linguistics classes. Anyone who claims that the Iranian hypothesis is "the most current" is smoking something illegal in the U.S. --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Iranian theory is still ancient history. The editor wanting it included used a link to a reader of 19th century linguistics as a reliable source. Lehmann edited the reader, but nowhere sanctioned the Iranian hypothesis. Indeed, the article that the link led to was the article by Hubschmann (spelling?) that showed Armenian was not Iranian. --Taivo (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Citing Lehmann is dishonest. He does not consider Armenian a branch of Iranian. He says : "Armenian stands in the sphere of the Aryan-Balto-Slavic languages between Iranian and Balto-Slavic."

If NYisnotbad wants to cite theories of specific notable modern academics and attribute the theories to them, that will be acceptable as NPOV but further reversion of this dishonest and fringe POV statement will be treated as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One sentence if there is a reliable current source would be acceptable, but an entire section with no reliable sources is not. --Taivo (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The user Nyisnotbad was blocked for one week for disruptive editing.μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rask seems to have been the first to say that Armenian was Iranian. Priority in error is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.208.61 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Baldi asserts (p79) that Armenian was shown to be separate from Iranian as a result of Huebschmann's work identifying the loanwords.μηδείς (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lehmann says verbatum: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Why is this being censored? Is it too politically sensitive to dare suggest Armenian is related to Iran or Iranians? In any case, politics has no bearing in linguistics. This is a perfectly legitimate theory espoused by many linguists, as Lehman himself states above, from his 2007 article on the subject.

If you don't agree with the theory, that's fine, you don't have to. But you don't have the right to complete censor the EXISTANCE of the theory. It should be listed as another hypothesis, at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not Lehmann who said this, but Hübschmann! 139 years ago! Pay attention to what "at present" means in context: In 1875, this was the best established and the prevailing view! Hübschmann says this right before he writes: "The aim of the following is to investigate whether it is tenable." and goes on to do exactly what had not been done before: disprove Müller's view. Talk about totally missing the point ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The article lead is far too short and undetailed given the article's length. Please read WP:LEAD. I expanded the lead to add matters which are already covered in more detail in the article, namely its external and internal classification. Aryamahasattva reverted the changes first as being "too detailed" - which is neither true nor compliant with WP:LEAD. Then Aryamahasattva reverted the changes wholesale for nothing other than the accusation that my edits are not in good faith. Nothing I have stated is controversial within the field. That Armenian is related to Greek and Indo-Aryan was already stated - I simply added that the augment and other isoglosses is the reason for the classification. And the internal classification of the third paragraph has nothing to do with edits by the blocked user - it is a summary of points made in the text of the article. These undiscussed wholesale reversions with accusations of bad faith are edit warring. If there is some specific issue that needs to be addressed such as Aryamahasattva's objection over the Renfrew citation they should be addressed here, not with a wholesale reversion.μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Armeno Aryan"

I agree with the recent reverts of Aryamahasattva's edits on the so-called Armeno-Aryan. The problem is not so much that the idea is a fringe one but that (1) the statement is ill-worded, (2) it does not clearly attribute the minority view, to the scholars who supposedly hold it, (3) it comes from interpreting a chart, not from an explicit argument in the text, and, (4) is inaccurate because the subgrouping is not iranian-armenian, but rather armenian-(indo-iranian). As far as one can guess, the chart might simply be based on the interpretation of Armenian as a satem language. And the subject of the cited book is NOT Indo-European dialectology. Finally, the authors are not exactly the leads in the field. And their reconstruction of *yotor for the PIE root "water" on page four is simply bizarre. If, Aryamahasattva, you want to add in a minority argument, it should be better worded, stated explicitly in the text you quote, and be attributed to notable authors who hold the theory.μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see Ary's addition is that this is the wrong article for it. This article is about Armenian, not about all the minute details of Armenian classification. We already mention the various options, but we don't need all the node names that are only used by a very small number of Indo-Europeanists and are not universally accepted. The level of detail that he/she wants to add is just too minute for this article. Perhaps it belongs in an article on Indo-European subgrouping, but not really here. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One troll, multiple accounts: -- Ευπάτωρ 17:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Armenian/Iranian hypothesis

Lehmann says verbatum: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Why is this being censored? Is it too politically sensitive to dare suggest Armenian is related to Iran or Iranians? In any case, politics has no bearing in linguistics. This is a perfectly legitimate theory espoused by many linguists, as Lehman himself states above, from his 2007 article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not being censored. You are insisting on the presentation of outdated and fringe theories as fact. You quote Bopp, for instance from the early 1800's. And you have been provided repeatedly with Lehmann's personal judgement, which is that Armenian lies between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, not that it is a subbranch of either. One more reversion of this edit will earn you a report for edit warring and perhaps a longer block than one week. Feel free to present the thoery accurately as a minority one, and as held by whomever holds it. Lehmann did not..μηδείς (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of this quote from Lehmann don't you understand? You cannot cite to Lehmann for one thing, then totally ignore him when he says something you don't like. Lehmann clearly states the Iranian hypothesis not only has not been disproven, but that it is in fact the "best established" and "prevailing" hypothesis to date. It's impossible to be more straight to the point than this. You are just denying and attempting to censor facts which are inconvenient for your argument.

"Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present." Nyisnotbad (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First, Nyisnotbad, you have not properly cited Lehmann. You just throw words out there and say that Lehmann wrote them. I don't believe you. Properly cite your source for this quote and then I will look it up myself and see how you've butchered Lehmann. Lehmann never wrote any such thing. Prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo and μηδείς, revert without discussion. That user is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned troll. See: -- Ευπάτωρ 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the above quote about Mueller by Lehmann precedes Lehmann's chapter-long analysis and disproof of Mueller's position.μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo - Lehmann has been properly cited. View the references cited in NYISNOTBAD's version, which clearly contains a link to an article by Lehmann located on an official site of the University of Texas. In this article, Lehmann says verbatim: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Lehmann, does, however, end up with stating that *his* personal preference among the theories is that Armenian is a seperate branch. But Lehmann does so *only* with the caveat that reasonable minds may disagree on the matter, and admitting that the Iranian theory has "not been disproved" and "must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Comment by blocked user 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link.  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/read12.html

I guess an article on History of classification of Armenian language would be appropriate to discuss these things. One should avoid labelling "minority view" by "fringe theory". As I can see the claim in this article on who made armenian language an independent indo-european language family is wrong: as far I know/am informed it was Rask himself (decades before 1870's) who claimed independence of armenian from Iranian (he somewhat changed his opinion later and stated that armenian is an iranian language). These things deserve mentioning but maybe in a separate article. Xashaiar (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a place for "theories of origin" in the existing article. Simply adding the Iranian theory to the other two theories shouldn't be so difficult. After all, the Iranian theory is the more prominent of them all, as Lehmann himself admits, and as any fluent speakers of both languages can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you have actually read this introduction. At no point in his editorial introduction does Lehmann endorse the Indo-Iranian connection of Armenian. He endorses the advancement of linguistic methodology in the article, but not its conclusions. Indeed, this article is a refutation of a view from 1875. With this article, Hubschmann effectively refuted the Armenian-Iranian hypothesis in 1875!!!! It is not a current hypothesis in any way, shape, or form except as an Iranian political viewpoint, which has no place whatsoever in a linguistic article in an English encyclopedia. And, as a further indication of your failure to understand this issue, you continue to call current proposals the Armenian-Iranian hypotheses when they are no such thing. It is Armenian-Indo-Iranian-Greek-Phyrgian. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User Nyisnotbad has been blocked and is using IP 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. These comments should be deleted. I am leaving the above comments in place since another editor has responded to them. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User Nyisnotbad

Nyisnotbad has again been blocked from editing this article, this time for 10 days, and has been placed on civility probation and been limited to one revert per page per week. Violations of these restrictions should be reported to the edit warring board.μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User Aryamahasattva

I have put a 3RR warning on Aryamahasattva's account. Eupator, the facts are suggestive re Aryamahasattva and the blocked user. If you have any more evidence can you please act on it?μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anatolian "connection"

Austin's hypothesis of an Anatolian connection is extremely problematic. According to the article it is based on purely negative evidence, which proves nothing. Mandarin lacks long vowels and the feminine gender. Should it be grouped with Armenian and Anatolian? I wonder if the source provides anything better. It seems like mere outdated speculation that doesn't take into account the importance of synapomorphy for classification. If not, I am in favor of deleting the reference entirely, or moving it to a new section for fringe theories.μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That can be expanded tenfold. Ties between Armenian and Luwian are very interesting and are presented in virtually every single IE studies book. Hardly a fringe theory. Just requires better sources. Another major thing that's missing from this article is a brief analysis of the Hurro-Urartian substrate in Armenian.-- Ευπάτωρ 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have such sources to recommend? Sounds very interesting if there are common innovations. I agree about the need for mention of the possibility of substratum influence. Unfortunately the local university has limited materials on historical linguistics, and I am very busy - but I intend to get to it.μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lehmann, Hübschmann and Müller

Winfred Lehmann's chapter on Armenian within his A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics has been cited repeatedly as showing that Lehmann supports the view that Armenian is a branch of Iranian. Not only is this a false summary of the text, which referes to Mueller's theory of the Iranian nature of Armenian only then to refute it, it is inaccurate in attributing that remark to Lehmann. Lehmann's only contribution is the editor's introduction. The chapter itself is a translation of Huebschmann, not Lehmann's own argument.μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.245.78.94, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There are some grammar mistakes in the 'western armenian' dialect section. I was wondering if I could correct them.

190.245.78.94 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You can either propose the dit in the form suggested in the template, or register for an account and make the edits yourself. I suggest the latter.μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please post the corrected version of the page here and I will make the changes to the article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

early contacts

The section currently mentions three early contacts, the Iranian, the Causcasian (largets subsection) and the supposed Anatolian. Rather than a long cumbersome subhead mentioning all three, as if they were of equal status and exhaustive, I simply chose a neutral descriptor.

I would very much welcome well sourced and NPOV additions on the Iranian influence, since it is significant. At this point I oppose a longer heading as cumbersome, but if the Iranian section were expanded, then we could give it and the Caucasian section their own subheads.μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

naram sin

I have been unable to find any scholarly reference tying the victory stele of naram sin to the armenians. This source (Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, Wayne Horowitz, 1998) says the reference may be to Aleppo in Syrian or the a land in western I ran but I find no metion of armenians.μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply referring once again to the stele itself is insufficient. According to the scholarly source above, the term seems to refer to the city of Alman or Halman in Western Iran. The only sources I can find connecting the stele to the Armenians are popular wikis and websites with obvious nationalist POVs and none of these provide scholarly sources to back their claims. We need a scholarly source for this extreme claim.μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this reference to the Aramni in the Naram Sin stele is a nationalist/fringe POV theory with no scholarly support. I have spent the last several hours searching for any reliable source. In addition to the source above, which explains that the stele refers to a place called Halman, J P Mallory and Adams in their Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, 1997, say in the essay on the origin of the Armenians (p29) that the earliest attestation of the Armenians is in 590 BC and that they can be identified, most likely, with the Muski from the twelfth century BC. This material should not be restored without attribution to some reputable scholar.μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Armenia as Xenophon Saw It", p 47, A History of Armenia Vahan Kurkjian, 2008

μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

xenophon

As far as I am aware other Greek authors did mention the Armenians, but Xenophon's is the oldest surviving mention of which I am aware. Any more reversions without a rationale and consensus will be treated as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AN3 complaint Aryamahasattva

I have formally filed an edit warring complaint against User:Aryamahasattva here. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

glottalic theory

I happily welcome comments on the glottalic theory. I fear the current comments are far to opaque for unfamiliar readers - can someone add an expansion needed banner rather than a clarification tag?

Also, unfortunately, the Sci Am ref to Diakonov fails. The word aspirated is not once mentioned in the article and Armenian and glottalic do not come anywhere close to each other. I don't question the underlying basis in fact, but the ref was added ad hoc and isn't useful for the claim.μηδείς (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

here is a link to said sci am source http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/sciam1.htm

You're right, that article doesn't really deal with the glottalic theory. I've replaced it with more reliable sources and clarified the wording to be more precise. This article on the Armenian language doesn't need more text on Armenian's relation to the glottalic theory. What is says is enough. The theory is not widely accepted anymore, so putting any more emphasis on it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE or something like that. It doesn't warrant more than the sentence it has. --Taivo (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want more weight given to the idea, but rather that it be explained a little more clearly so that lay readers will have at least some idea of what is being talked about - not that it's an easy subject to condense! I'll see what I can do later.μηδείς (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember that it's an outdated notion and if readers want more information, there is a convenient Wikilink that they can follow. It's not critical information for this article. --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

flags

My personal opinion is that a list of flags listing any nation in which a particular language is spoken is pretty much useless. I would support limiting listing only countries where the language has a de jure or de facto official status or a significant minority status, above some reasonable percentage threshold. This should be a matter of reasoned consensus and verifiable sources, not assertion of personal knowledge.μηδείς (talk)

Reliable sources and not personal knowledge or other Misplaced Pages articles should always be the foundation. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, why is Azerbaijan's flag listed? Armenians no longer reside in Azerbaijan, those that do are very few in number, can't openly claim to be Armenian, and speak either Azeri turkish and/or Russian. I suggest it be removed.--Moosh88 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources still list Armenian as being spoken in Azerbaijan. That's what we go on. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind providing me a link to these 'reliable' sources?--Moosh88 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnologue. This has been discussed over and over again, ad nauseam, to the point of nausea. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a shocker. Can you provide me a link to the relevent discussion? I'd like to see what else is supporting including Azerbaijan as a country where Armenian is spoken--Moosh88 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnologue, The Linguasphere Register, Sprachen der Welt, Classification and Index of the World's Languages, Atlas of the World's Languages, etc. all place Armenian speakers in Azerbaijan. Indeed, I have yet to find a single source on my shelf that gives detailed distribution info on Armenian that does not include Azerbaijan. That's a fairly large list of reliable sources, no matter what your personal feelings about Ethnologue are. BTW, the best reliable sources are not "links", but actual, printed books. --Taivo (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

On another note, Armenian is spoken not only in Israel but also in Palestine - the Armenian quarter in the old city of Jerusalem is East of the '67 armistice line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.51.232 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

balkan indo-european

Phoenecians8 has been repeatedly removing the word Balkan from the text's reference to the proposed Balkan Indo-European subgroup while adding Indo-Iranian to that group. The reference to p 383 of Fortson from the article is available here. It quite explicitly contrasts the older augment subgrouping to a newer Baltic one:

"At times it has been thought to form a group with Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Phrygian (section 10.4). Another view that has been gaining prominence regards it as part of a "Balkan Indo-European" Subgroup together with Greek, Albanian and Phrygian."

I don't know how much clearer this can be. But the edits reflect a fatal misunderstanding of the source at best, if not an outright falsification of the source which names a Balkan group and excludes Indo-Iranian from it. I tried communicating with the editor but given the continued reversion I have warned the editor about edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous anon IP has been replaced by another anon IP, perhaps a sock of the first. I have requested semi-protection for the page. --Taivo (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad mistakes in Correspondence in initial position table

There are some serious mistakes in 'Correspondence in initial position' table. Here they are: 1. First of all, one can easily see no difference between rows 2 and 4 (Sebastia and Istanbul) as well as between rows 3 and 7 (Erevan and Classical Armenian etc.). 2. Then, Classical Armenian is a disputed dialect / accent: most scholars hold it didn't have breathy voiced consonants, others, a relatively small group (but perhaps a more progressive), that it did have them. 3. The breathy voice symbol is a small , not , e.g., . 4. The Armenian dialect names tradition knows neither Azeri Əylis (it is Agulis) nor Turkish Sason (which is Sasun). Why name Armenian-derived toponyms with these corrupted forms? 5. The given IE forms - voiced, breathy and voiceless - are just one of the two hypotheses, the second being the Glottalic theory which says these sounds were ejective, voiced and voiceless respectively.

For more and correct info, see, for example, Andrew Garrett: Adjarian's Law, the Glottalic Theory and the Position of Armenian --Mahtrqerin (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

language isolate, or not? Articles must be co-ordinated

Currently, the article on ARMENIANS describes Armenian as a language isolate. There is no middle ground here, either it is, or it is not. Whatever the linguistic subject matter experts conclude the Reliable Sources in the majority state, either this language article, or the article on Armenians has to be adjusted. Please prioritize this, as currently you have very contradictory information in the Wiki. (adjusted for my mistake)HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Armenian is not a language isolate and never has been. Linguists have placed it in the Indo-European language family since the 19th century. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Taivo (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I sort of smelled some nationalism going on there about this.  :-) This was added in the March 2012 timeframe by user Lycurgus. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article didn't state that it's a language isolate, it said Indo-European language isolate, which it is. The other two existing IE language isolates are Greek and Albanian.-- Ευπάτωρ 08:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "an Indo-European language isolate", Eupator. "Language isolate" is a technical term for a language with no known relatives. That is not true of Armenian. You cite Greek and Albanian as other "Indo-European language isolates", but you have obviously not bothered to read either of those articles, and have not read this article either. None of those articles call these languages "isolates". Linguistic science simply does not use that term for these three languages or any other language that has been demonstrably placed in a language family. --Taivo (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI - I ran across this in another article and corrected it. I wonder how many articles have the same nonsense about it, or Greek and Albanian, sprinkled in them? Misplaced Pages - the never-ending job of policing!HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All three are "family-level isolates", as Wurm would put it. An "isolate" just means no relatives at a certain level – presumably Basque has relatives too if we were able to go back far enough. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

IE cognate sets

This article isn't about Slavic languages or any other group of IE languages other than Armenian, therefore only one representative of the major branches of IE is appropriate in the cognate list, not every language that some nationalist IP wants to display for the world because s/he doesn't like the principle representative already on the chart. Russian and Old Church Slavonic are the standard representatives of Slavic in most works on Indo-European. Russian is the representative in this article's chart. Adding Ukrainian because an anon IP doesn't like Russian is inappropriate in this article. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian "požar" not cognate with "fire"

Russian word "пожар" (požar) is a composite word consisting of the prefix po- and stem žar, the same as in the word "žarko" two lines above. Additionally the word has a specific meaning of 'disastrous fire' (i.e. structure fire, forest fire - these usages would be translated with the word "požar"), while the unmarked word for the physical phenomenon of fire is "огонь" (ogon'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.11.222 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here ! Misplaced Pages is beautiful. --SuperArmenian (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agglutinative

This sentence seems suspicious: "Armenian is agglutinative, one of only two Indo-European languages with this characteristic, the other one being Persian." Is Persian really the only Iranian language that is agglutinative? By the way, the page for Ossetian also claims that it is agglutinative. User332572385 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

BRD

JorisvS Reverting and not discussing this issue is clearly a violation of BRD. This should have been done with your first revert. So please, can you explain in full detail why the removal of such reliably sourced content should be maintained? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No, EtienneDolet, when YOU get reverted, YOU are to bring it to the Talk Page, not the editor doing the reverting. Read WP:BRD. That is utter unscientific nonsense about Armenian being one of the "oldest languages". There is no such thing. All languages are equally old (except for pidgins and creoles) because they ultimately all have their source a couple hundred thousand years ago in Africa. That "oldest language" crap has been around for thousands of years since humans first became interested in languages and it's as much nationalistic chest-pounding now as it was then. --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are the bold editor who should bring this to the talk page. Languages do not have 'ages' (except for creoles). No language can said to be older than another, because all languages have a continuous line of descend with earlier forms. Often, they split into multiple descendants, but not always. And referring to a proto-language with the same term or not has no bearing whatsoever on the actual situation. This is where my example of if Italian would still be called Latin and then claiming it is one of the oldest languages in the world comes from. --JorisvS (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist I'm not the only person who appears to be reverting. In fact, I don't have a concern with such content remaining there. If there are users who disagree with such content, why must that user resort to edit-summaries to express himself? What are talk pages for? In fact, isn't it quite odd to see a user open a section in the TP of content he agrees with?

JorisvS No, you should have brought it here. Please read my response to Taivo above.

Your explanation as to languages being old may have validity under the understanding of our general understanding of linguistics, but the Armenian languages as a classification of a certain branch of human language has existed for quite some time now. Armenians spoke Armenian in the days of Xenophon and Homer. It was indeed known as Armenian then as it is now. And with a tremendous amount of sources backing such a claim, I don't see what's so wrong with that statement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't actually read WP:BRD, EtienneDolet. B you add something boldly to the article. R someone reverts your addition. D you then go to the talk page and justify why you want to add the material you want to add, building a consensus before putting it back in. You are simply wrong about who should be talking on the Talk Page. It's you who have to justify your edits. We don't have to justify our reverts before you bring it here. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know anything about the scientific field of linguistics, EtienneDolet, if you think that your simplistic description of Armenian bears any relationship to scientific fact. It's just nationalistic chest-beating. The Armenian language changes just like every other language in the world and at about the same rate. Today's spoken Armenian is no more similar to Armenian of 2000 years ago than today's Italian is to Latin. We could just as easily call today's Italian "Latin" with about the same level of accuracy. Modern Armenian is not an "old" language. It is no older than Italian or Mandarin or English. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Making personal attacks such as "you don't know anything" is really not acceptable, especially when the content I provided wasn't said by me, but from reliably sourced material published by the Duke University Press and Routledge. In fact, I could flood the lead with dozens of sources if I had to, but I didn't because it's the lead (per WP:WHYCITE). Calling my edits nationalist is also a baseless personal attack, since I'm neither an Armenian, nor am I a nationalist, and a Misplaced Pages talk page shouldn't be a place for me to defend myself in that regard. As for your argument regarding the Armenian language of then and now being like Italian and Latin works against you. Though Latin may have similar traits with Italian, French, Spanish, and etc., it is classified as a different language in the scholarly and academic field. What you're doing is equating the two as a makeshift attempt to differentiate the Armenian of the 5th century to the Armenian of today. Yes, the Armenian language has evolved, but the syntax, lexicon, and grammatical structure has remained intact. I could say pronunciation is probably the biggest difference. But more importantly, this isn't about the extent of the evolution, nor is it about differentiation in its specifications, this is about classification, and most modern scholars, if not all, consider the Armenian language to be a separate branch of the Indo-European language from at least the 5th century and onwards. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Classical Armenian is just as much a different language from Modern Armenian, with all the necessary differences. No language spoken today was spoken in the 5th century, the rate of change is always just too high. And Armenian has been a separate branch of Indo-European for far longer than the 5th century, but that has no bearing on Classical Armenian vs. Modern Armenian. --JorisvS (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no source in the academic field that would dare to say modern and classical Armenian are two different languages. That has never been argued and in fact, classical Armenian is still used today in Armenia and throughout its Diaspora as the official language of many of its institutions (i.e. educational facilities, church, community centers, and etc.). At this point, it is classification that's important here and indeed, the Armenian language was classified as a separate language then as it is now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If accurate, that's because linguists seldom have a need to say something along the lines of 'these are two different languages', which is not something linguistically interesting. They discuss the sources of their data, describe the differences and similarities and try to describe how they arose and in relation to other speech varieties (such as when a branch likely split off). Nowhere do claims that cannot be grounded in evidence, like '... is one of the oldest languages', have any use. Now, of course Classical Armenian was a distinct language from its neighbors then, just as much as Modern Armenian is a distinct language from its neighbors. After all, Armenian split off from other Indo-European languages much earlier, which means precisely that, 'the Armenian branch split off from other Indo-European languages early', not 'it is one of the oldest languages'. How do you even want to quantify the latter? What are the delineations/criteria you want to use? --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 'proto-Armenian' statement: I am not suggesting either that proto-Armenian was spoken at the time the Armenian alphabet was invented in the 5th century. Proto-Armenian only existed during the Urardian period. But it was the Armenian language that was spoken and written by the time of the invention of the Armenian alphabet. Even if the 5th century were to be taken into account, I don't understand why it's such a problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian language that was spoken in the 5th century is not the Armenian language that is spoken today. Changes are continually happening in every language, including Armenian. --Taivo (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you "didn't know anything", I said that it's clear you don't really know scientific linguistics, which is the case. I'm sure you know a lot about other things. And that quote is not from a reliable linguistic source. I could quote tons of reliable sources in other fields that could say almost anything. The key is that reliable sources only count if they are on topic written by specialists in the topic. I also didn't call you a nationalist, I called the content of your edit (the quote from a non-linguistic source) nationalist and typical of nationalistic chest-beating. It is. I don't know if you are a nationalist or not, but your quote was. And your argument about Italian and Latin versus Classical Armenian and Modern Armenian simply shines a spotlight on the fact that you don't understand linguistic science and language change. JorisvS also responded to this. I suggest you read some actual linguistic works on the topic. For good discussions of the differences between Classical Armenian and Modern Armenian available in English, see:

• Benjamin W. Fortson IV. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture. Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell.
• John A.C. Greppin. 1997. "Armenian Phonology," Phonologies of Asia and Africa. Eisenbrauns. Volume 2. Pages 777-793.
• Roberto Ajello. 1998. "Armenian," The Indo-European Languages. Routledge. Pages 197-227.
• John A.C. Greppin. 1992. "Armenian," International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford. Volume 1. Pages 112-114.
• Bernard Comrie. 1981. The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge.
• E.G. Tumanyan. 1966. "Armyanskiy Yazyk," Yazyki Narodov SSSR. Izdatel'stvo "Nauka". Volume 1. Pages 562-598.

And those are just the ones I have on my personal shelves. And at no single, solitary point do any of them say, "Armenian is one of the oldest languages". It's simply not linguistically factual. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And yes, every actual linguistic source treats Modern Armenian as a different language from Classical Armenian in the same sense that they treat Middle English as a different language from Modern English. And for centuries after Latin became Italian, French, Spanish, etc. it was still used as the language of education, church, community centers, etc. You simply don't understand what we're telling you. The language of the Armenian people has, of course, been on a separate branch of Indo-European for a couple of millennia. But that's not the same thing as saying that today's language is "one of the oldest" or that Modern Armenian is the same language as Classical Armenian. That's simply not linguistically accurate. The very fact that there are different labels for the two illustrates the linguistic reality--that they are different speech forms (and that even ignores the third label "Middle Armenian"). Indeed, there are linguistic descriptions that even treat Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian as different languages. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This is what you are really trying to say: The Armenian branch seems to have separated from Proto-Indo-European early and is not closely tied to any other Indo-European group. The article already says that. Armenian is not "one of the oldest languages" since that makes no linguistic sense whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, you have not provided a source that specifically classifies that Classical Armenian is a different language than its modern equivalent. Please show some WP:VERIFIABILITY and don't expect to have me read all those books and address your concern. Again, claiming that I don't know "linguistic science" brings nothing productive to this discussion. You'd have to respond to what sources say and not engage in such personal attacks. As for what my sources say, it is perfectly clear that modern linguists don't consider Classical Armenian with modern Armenian as two different branches of language:

• Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. ISBN 3110895145. - "Evidence of Armenian begins with the 5th century AD, likely soon after the creation of the Armeinan script in 407 by missionary Mesrop in order to translate the Bible into Armenian in 410.
• M.P., Sinha (2005). Modern Linguistics. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. ISBN 8126904151. "Armenian. Its oldest texts date from 405 AD."

None of these sources place Classical and Modern into two different language categories. What was called Armenian then is still called Armenian today is all I'm trying to say. To say that they are two different languages would go against most scholarly discourse and classification. In fact, what would be better is to see a source that would go out of its way to make that assertion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you don't understand what the two linguists here are saying. Until you actually comprehend what is being said to you, it's difficult for you to discuss this effectively. Your quotes directly above are correct, the earliest written texts in Armenian are from 405 AD, but that's not Modern Armenian, is it? That's Classical Armenian. Every single one of the sources I've cited above differentiate between Classical Armenian and Middle Armenian and Modern Western Armenian and Modern Eastern Armenian. Just because you are unwilling to actually do the linguistic research to understand the linguistic issues involved isn't our problem. It's your problem. Armenian is simply not "one of the oldest languages". That is a linguistically stupid comment. The Armenian branch of Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European relatively early. That is a linguistically valid comment and the article already states that. But is it definitely not the same thing as "Armenian is one of the oldest languages". --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't expect you to read everything, but we do expect you to understand the things you're saying and the quotes you're using. Those quotes are just saying what the age is of the oldest written evidence we have from the Armenian branch, nothing more. Clear and verifiable, contrary to age claims of a language. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the age, it is not nationalistic baloney. I find that pretty offensive. Classical Armenian is very old. --92slim (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Classical Armenian is not "very old". It is the same age as Old English and Late Coptic, for example. But "Armenian" is not "very old". It is old in the same sense that you could say "English is very old". Modern Armenian is not "very old". But linguists don't use such language since it is unscientific. That's the point here. We're not going to allow unscientific baloney. --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Etienne, hi. The written tradition of Hindi goes back to Vedic Sanskrit, but no-one would say that Hindi is one of the oldest languages in the world because of that. Based on your definition, nearly all of the literary languages of India are "older" than Armenian. But that statement has no meaning: Armenian didn't start with writing, so it makes no sense to date it according to when it was first written. You get the same kind of claims about Chinese, but since probably less than 1% of the Chinese population can read Classical Chinese (and essentially 0% can read the old stuff), claims about how old it is are terribly misleading. Better to say that Armenian has a written history dating back to X, or a literary tradition dating back to Y. You could even say it has one of the oldest written traditions in the area (though you'd need a reliable source for that), but it's not useful to give the meaningless description "old" to the language. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami I appreciate your honest response, I do more or less agree with you. To further clarify my position: I never wanted to say that the Armenian language started with the birth of its script. Some scholars do use that date, but it may be wrong to say so since Armenian was spoken earlier than that. My point here is to respect Armenian as a separate branch of the IE language in and of itself. It split off from the IE branch relatively early and that's what makes it old. Whether we should take Classical, Medieval, or Modern Armenian as a premise to such debates shouldn't matter because all of that falls within our understanding of the Armenian language as its own entity. JorisvS' response here is actually what I'm in agreement with. Perhaps adding 'the Armenian branch split off from other Indo-European languages early' in the article would be a good compromise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is a way of saying it forms its own branch of IE. But I would take your wording to mean that the Armenian branch split off early compared to other branches, which we have no good evidence for. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It must be kept in mind that the fact that Latin is considered a different language from its modern descendants, and that it has a completely different name from most of its descendants, is not an objective fact about Latin but merely a social convention. It would be equally possible to consider Latin and the modern Romance languages all a single language, just like many do in the case of Chinese, Arabic or Quechua, or at least to give the modern Romance languages names including "Latin" (indeed, they are sometimes called "Neo-Latin", especially in the Italian tradition that likes to emphasise the continuity from Latin to Italian). For example, we could call Classical Latin "Ancient Latin" and the Romance languages "Modern Latin", Italian "Italo-Latin", Spanish "Hispano-Latin" or "Hispanic Latin" etc., analogously to Arabic. What we call languages is completely arbitrary. This is the true reason why some languages seem to be older than others – Armenian, Greek, Persian, Chinese, Arabic, Aramaic – they kept their name since antiquity (or sometimes it was consciously resurrected, in the case of Uyghur even for a different, albeit closely related language), although they have since split into a number of mutually unintelligible varieties. Neither are these languages all particularly conservative (Chinese certainly isn't, nor are the modern Arabic "dialects"), nor do they all have the oldest continuous and surviving written traditions – the written tradition of Armenian is old, but far from the oldest. For example, the written tradition of North Germanic is at least equally old, but the North Germanic languages are not treated as a single language anymore. The written tradition of Indic is even far older, but again, the Indic languages are not treated as a unit. There are some more "exotic" languages such as Tibetan, Mon(ic), Yucatec Maya, Nubian, Javanese, Cham(ic) or Telugu which have a written tradition of a comparable age, but they are usually overlooked. Even Japanese is attested as early as Classical Armenian (if much more marginally), as in the Inariyama Sword inscription. Globally, a 1500-year-old written tradition is old, but not all that unique. Compare List of languages by first written accounts. And, to emphasise that point again, "age of written tradition of X language" is not "age of X language" (let alone "age of the X standard language"!). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke I did find a source () that claims "Armenian and Georgian are the oldest literary languages in continuous use in Eastern Europe." I also found another source () that says "Armenian is the oldest of the literary languages in use in the USSR today." I think this perspective of the Armenian language is pretty significant. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That is at least more specific than "Armenian is a mighty old language", which is so vague as to be meaningless. Still, if you insist on defining Eastern Europe as broadly as to include the Transcaucasus, I wonder how you can ignore Greek, which has been used as the (or a) prime literary language throughout a significant part of the region ever since antiquity, including the Caucasus itself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the oldest at any rate, but at least 'one of the oldest'. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"ajnabi" as Indo-European cognate?

Is there a source for ajnabi ("stranger, unfamiliar" in Persian) being an Indo-European cognate from *n- + *ǵneH₃-? The Wiktionary entry notes without comment that it's of Arabic origin, from أَجْنَبِيّ ʾajnabiyy, and the latter form looks like it's derived from the triliteral root j-n-b. I can't find anything suggesting that ʾajnabiyy or j-n-b were borrowed into Arabic. --Futurulus (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer to my question

I would like to know why this sentence was removed from the lead;
"Its vocabulary has been heavily influenced by Western Middle Iranian languages, particularly Parthian, and to a lesser extent by Greek, Latin, Old French, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and other languages throughout its history."
Oddly this was removed by the IP73.51.204.149, with the edit summary of "no sources".
Yet, "Classical Armenian, or Grabar, imported numerous words from Middle Iranian languages, primarily Parthian, and contains smaller inventories of borrowings from Greek, Syriac..."
Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian, I. M. Diakonoff, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 105, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1985), 597.
And, "The loans from Iranian languages initially led linguists to erroneously classify Armenian as an Iranian language. The distinctness of Armenian was only recognized when Hübschmann (1875) used the comparative method to distinguish two layers of Iranian loans from the older Armenian vocabulary." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)