Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 13 December 2008

	Endangered languages (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Endangered languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languagesTemplate:WikiProject Endangered languagesEndangered languages

Languages B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

IPA templates for Cyrillic

Untifler, be cautious about using Template:IPA for Cyrillic text. I don't think all of the fonts specified in the template contain all of the letters (at least Gentium doesn't have letters beyond the Russian, that I know of). This could make someone's display worse instead of better.

The best solution would be to create another similar template, specifically for Cyrillic and that contains only fonts that have all the possible characters.

—Michael Z. 2005-02-4 00:57 Z

I've replaced the IPA template with Template:Unicode for now, as was suggested at Template talk:IPA. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question: what are the "correct" Unicode code points for the characters that are specific to Chuvash, i.e. not in the standard Cyrillic/ Russian alphabet? Particularly the A/a and E/e with the caron or breve on top: is it supposed to be a caron or a breve? These look almost identical, particulary with small font sizes, but of course they're different code points (E + caron = U+011A, E + breve = U+04D6). Of course it's possible both are used...

(apologies for my signature; I haven't figured this thing out yet)

  Mike Maxwell
 128.8.89.5 15:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm the above Mike Maxwell, and I've now created an account, so I can be legitimate :-).

  McSwell 18:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether classification is true?

Here it is specified (Turkic_languages):

Turkic → Oghuric (or Hunnic) → Proto-Bulgar

I no speak english. Please correct it. PCode 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the classification order. --Hottenot

Phonology of consonants

Could they please be in IPA instead of Cyrillic transliteration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.200.206 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I protected the page in the hopes that our anon. edit warrior will join us or at least sign in. His POV is that only native names can be listed as alternate names, not a convention followed on any other language article. kwami (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, would not it be better to list the variant spellings for the name of the language - along with an indication in what publications and in what language these names are used - in a small separate section, rather than in the first sentence of the article? Vmenkov (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While a laundry list of all attested variants of "Chuvash" is not desirable, to eliminate all alternates is equally undesirable. What are the most commonly used alternate spellings for Chuvash? (A separate section is not desirable either since this is not a major topic.) (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

In other articles when things like this become distracting to the lede, but aren't worth a dedicated section, people sometimes put them in a footnote. "Chuvash" is the only common term in English, so maybe this would be appropriate here? kwami (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would still think that the articles on German language, with its section on German_language#Names_for_German_in_other_languages, or Persian language with Persian language#Local names, are good examples. I'd have to agree with kwami that just listing a bunch of names without context for each one is not entirely helpful or educational; but explaining whether those other names are/were used in English, or are used in some other language(s) where much is written about the Chuvash, would be quite useful for an interested reader. As a casual reader, I currently have no idea what's behind all those names - is Chăvash is perhaps based on a different transliteration of the self-name of the language? is much study of that language done in Turkey where it is called Çuvaş?, etc. Vmenkov (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time I asked for protection, there was an edit war going on without discussion. That is unacceptable in any situation. In looking at the issue, I've noticed that the only English alternative listed anywhere for Chuvash is "Bulgar", but that has a separate article. In this case, I don't see any real need for the alternative names since they aren't found in English. A footnote with foreign forms would be acceptable, but presently these names look more like multiple Turkish spellings and European forms. I'll place them in a footnote for now. (Taivo (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I came accross the excentric editing of this anon. on my watch of the languages and linguistics sector. I'm a linguist and part of the project covering the subject. In articles on uncommon languages, variants of language names are given to a full extent and always in the main body of the text. Relegating them to a footnote is humoring crackpot views of how the encyclopedia should be run.

The same anon. has been deleting German references for Russian ones and a Chuvash-Turkish online dictionary in favor of a Chuvash-Russian one. He uses several IP addresses. I reported him here. Best, Eklir (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In deciding how many alternate forms to include in a language article, I generally go by what Ethnologue and Linguist List have. In this case, the only alternate form shown in either source is "Bulgar". We could get extreme and follow the extensive lists of alternate spellings in Voegelin and Voegelin, but that seems to be overkill. In this case, there aren't really any major variants (all are simply orthographic variations of "Chuvash"). The footnote solution seems much more logical in this case. (Taivo (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Ethnologue is not reliable for alternate language names. Bulgar is at best a sister language to Chuvash with both of them belonging to the Oghur language family. As for the anon., as I checked a bit up on him, he has a long history of vandalizing the Tatars page where he has been accused of sock puppetry. He is using the whole range of 195.210.193.x (where x stands for a number between 1 and 254), thus avoiding to get blocked. He is also active on other Turk related pages, always with an anti-Turkic/anti-Turkish/pro-Russian stance dismissing opponent opinions as propaganda. The IP address 195.210.193.x points to a location in Ljubljana (Slovenia) operated by the ISP TELEKOM SLOVENIJE D.D. Something should be done about him. Eklir (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And he just deleted your comments about him. We can do a range block, but that's rather extreme, because no-one else at that IP address would be able to edit. (I doubt he's changing his account, just using a variable IP address. That's not under his control.) Or we can keep this article protected.

I agree that Ethnologue is not reliable. For most languages, however, we list alternates so that people can cross-ref other sources, and generally stick to English names from the last couple centuries. I don't have a problem with lots of others, but it really is trivia for nearly everybody, so I think a footnote is proper. kwami (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Our anon. is repeatedly deleting an external link to a dictionary, claiming it's "false information". I've been blocking his addresses as he uses them. Perhaps he'll sign in and join us. kwami (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, semi-protected this talk page. kwami (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind a small section on language names. It's one of the things that I find useful on Misplaced Pages actually, because if I go looking for other sources, printed or online, you do often end up searching for alternate names or in alternate languages. As long as it stays within the realm of the languages used most frequently to talk about that language - a bit like the Basque page which tells you it's basque in French, vasco/la lengua vasca/vascuence/euskara/euskera in Spanish. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be useful. kwami (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the alternate names just so it doesn't start to look too extreme. You have unfairly labelled Ethnologue, however, as "unreliable". Ethnologue, for a worldwide reference especially, is generally quite reliable. Of course there are errors in its coverage and in its conclusions, that is to be expected from a reference of its scope. But too many people paste a broad "unreliable" label on it because they have found a minor error in their favorite language. The errors of Ethnologue are just that in the vast majority of cases--minor. Some call Ethnologue "unreliable" because it is sponsored by a religious organization. However, the breadth of its research now goes far beyond the admittedly religious-oriented first or second editions. I personally know a Buddhist and an atheist who are hired by SIL to conduct linguistic research and many of the linguists laboring for SIL are good, solid, well-trained linguists, and some are the recognized authorities in their field. So please don't paint Ethnologue as "unreliable". It is a very good source, but as with all sources, no matter how well edited and researched, there are minor errors. (Taivo (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

The language data they give is normally not bad but their language name data (and I think that's what he meant) is less reliable. For example, they had Euzkadi (bad spelling for Euskadi and Gipuzkoa listed as alternate names for Basque, even long after I had pointed out to them that both are geographical terms. Given that, I have always treated their language names with care. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, Taivo. Ethnologue is the most reliable universal ref, which is why we rely on it so much. And of course being geared towards Bible translation means that a language is defined according to what needs a separate translation, rather than intelligibility--which is fine, if not something we want to adopt wholescale for our different purposes here. Some families have very good coverage: you can see where those experts are working. But there are lots of minor errors and lots of major errors too: Entries for "languages" which do not actually exist (the equivalent of listing "Euzkadi" and "Gipuzkoa" as additional members of the Basque family), classifications which no specialists in the family believe, maps entries colored for the wrong families, etc. etc. etc. Some of the data must be taken from sources a fifty years old. I've gotten to the point that if we have a reliable ref for a particular family, and it disagrees with Ethnologue, I assume it's Ethnologue that's wrong. That may be unfair in many cases, but cleaning up the Khoisan languages meant abandoning Ethnologue for everything but population data. And then the maps for New Guinea ... Since it's online, I don't see why they can't correct mistakes as they're pointed out to them, the way the OED does, rather than waiting for the new print edition. kwami (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the Basque entry, although Euzkadi and Gipuzkoa have disappeared, it still has two errors in it, one a major one: Alternate names: Vascuense, Euskera. Dialects: Guipuzcoan (Guipuzcoano, Gipuzkoan), Alto Navarro Septentrional (High Navarrese, Upper Navarran), Alto Navarro Meridional, Biscayan (Vizcaino), Roncalese, Avalan. Vascuense is a typo for Vascuence (must have been a South American editor :b) and Avalan should be Alavan and Alavan as a dialect is so dead (since the 16th century) and unattested no one dares argue for its existence. I must concur with what kwami says fully here. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I surely didn't mean to imply that Ethnologue is near perfect. The level of error certainly changes from language family to language family. But I object to the wholesale condemnation of the source because of errors in particular places. I'm not completely certain why the on-line reference has to be coordinated with the print reference, but it is probably due to a combination of the caution with which they make changes (I've filled out the error report forms before and they are not inconsequential documents) and copyright issues. When I have reported errors in the languages that I specialize in, the changes were incorporated in the next edition. I don't have a problem with statements like "Ethnologue's Basque section has serious errors in it", but I object to statements like "Ethnologue is unreliable" (because its Basque section has serious errors in it). I didn't take offense, I just want to make sure that our statements about Ethnologue are accurate and nonprejudicial. I know many people who work for SIL and they are all serious, dedicated, and competent linguists. (Taivo (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

I just cited Basque as an example. There are more. Scots Gaelic for example has Albannach Gaidhlig as an alternate name, which should be Gàidhlig na h-Alba or at least Gàidhlig Albannach. Irish is missing most of its alternate names (Gaolainn etc), Rumantsch has a handful of alternates but not the official Rumantsch. I am NOT dismissing anything on Ethnologue out of hand, but if there are such errors and gaps on *easily* veryfiable languages like Basque and Gaelic, then it seems a reasonable assumption that the data for less well researched languages may be equally flawed. Could we just agree it's not the ultimate source to cite in a dispute? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles