Talk:List of languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm adding Kachin to the list --- it's spoken by the Kachin hill people in northern Burma. Read Shelby Tucker's "Among Insurgents: Walking Through Burma" for info. It's great. --BrentDanzig 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Should we really add the name of a language in itself to this list? Doesn't it really suffice to have that in the article about the language itself? -- Timwi 16:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just thought it looked better that way. I don't mind if it gets reverted, though... كسيپ Cyp 16:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I edited the article for two reasons:

  1. "Bayern" means "Bavaria", not "Bavarian"
  2. as Timwi & كسيپ Cyp note above, we're putting English names, at least on this page.

(But for the record, in Bavarian, "Bairisch" means "Bavarian language or dialect"; in German, "Bayerisch" could be used to mean the same.) --Jerzy 16:21, 2003 Oct 15 (UTC)

Why won't /Xam work? Bennett Chronister 08:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cause it's got a slash at the beginning. - Mustafaa 14:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Conlangs

Strongly suggest removing the conlangs from this list to a separate one. -==SV 03:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second the motion Ish ishwar 22:54, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Removed constructed languages, except Esperanto. — ishwar (SPEAK) 17:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
I vote against. Anyone else want to see the constructed languages BACK in this list? Wiwaxia 06:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Put Esperanto back, I say. It has a very long history, has a considerable body of literature, is used by a lot of people and is hardly comparable to insignificant conlangs. The average reader would certainly expect it to be in this list.
Peter Isotalo 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Esperanto is a natural language in the sence intended here. It is used for actual communication by lots of people in the whole world, and there are even more than a thousand native speakers. It is also a constructed language, but that doesn't stop it from being a natural language (read natural language). To exclude it from this list is discrimination against its speakers (especially against the native speakers). So I put it back in. Marcoscramer 15:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I know plenty of readers that I consider "average," and none of them expects an artificial language to be included in a list of natural languages. (The natural language article was written by someone pushing Esperanto...Esperanto is not a natural language.)
The basic division in the languages used by man is between "natural languages" and "artificial languages." "Artificial languages" are languages that have been invented by someone, as opposed to "natural languages" that develop naturally among peoples. Examples of artificial languages are Esperanto, Ido, Klingon, and Volapük. Artificial languages may be further divided into human languages, machine languages, fantasy languages, and so on. Some artificial languages, such as Esperanto, have been around for a while...some natural languages (creoles) are relatively recent. A natural language may arise in only a couple of generations. The deciding factor in whether a language is natural or artificial is not its age, but whether it came about naturally (as Haitian Creole) or artificially (as Esperanto). The average reader expects artificial languages (including Esperanto) to be listed with constructed languages and artificial languages, and such pages should exclude English, German, Latin, and all other natural languages. Just because some parents raise their children speaking only Esperanto or Klingon does not lend validity to an artificial language or in any way make it natural. —Stephen 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The distinction you make between natural and artificial languages is a very artificial distinction. There is no clear border. For example, German, as it is spoken nowadays, was "artificially created" by Martin Luther. Until his days, there existed no standard dialect of German. So when he translated the bible into German, he just used a mix of the three dialects he knew, and thus created what is now known as "Hochdeutsch". Does that mean we should remove German from this list? Clearly not!
Another problem with the natural-artificial distinction is that these words are used for two different distinctions: On the one hand for the distinction you (try to) draw. On the other hand, for the distinction between speakable languages and for example programming languages. When you mentioned "machine languages", did you mean programming languages? In that case you spoke very confusingly, because you mentioned programming languages together with speakable languages, though they constitute completely different categories.
I can't envisage any argument for this very artificial and ambiguou distinction to be used to divide the lists of languages in the Wikipedia. Of course, I can understand that people want to see Spanish, Swahili and Japanese on a different list than Klingon, Lojban and Volapük. But in this case one could simply distinguish between living languages and non-living language. I can see that this list also contains formerly living languages (e.g. Anglo-Saxon), so a good definition for this list would be to say that it contains only living languages and languages that once were living languages. (Though it might be more consistent if we split off the extinguished languages). Marcoscramer 21:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The distinction "I" make between natural and artificial languages is neither arbitrary nor "artificial." You are rationalizing, and rationalization is the tool used by extremists and the very young to "prove" any nonsense they wish to promote. Esperanto is a constructed language, an artificial language...Esperanto was made by human skill (Zamenhof’s) and produced by a man (Zamenhof). That’s what "artificial" means and that’s what Esperanto is. Synonyms of "artificial" include "synthetic" and "assembled." The antonym of "artificial" is "natural." "Natural" means formed by nature (as opposed to "artificial")...English, Spanish, and Latin are natural languages, and Esperanto is an artificial language, exactly the same as Volapük, Klingon and Lojban.
I have my degrees in several languages and I studied linguistics in my coursework. I have worked as a professional linguist and translator for more than four decades. In my youth I studied Esperanto along with several other conlangs and discovered that the reason that they are so easy is that they are not foreign languages at all. When an American speaks Esperanto, he’s just speaking simplified English with an automatic word substitution. When a Brazilian speaks Esperanto, he’s really just speaking Portuguese. As long as both speakers keep it simple, they can understand one another in a basic way.
As for your concerns about High German, Martin Luther corresponded with like-minded friends who lived in various parts of the country, and in their communications they evolved naturally a style of writing that suited them all. High German is like a man who has had a liver transplant from his brother ... Esperanto is Robby the Robot. High German is a natural language, and no reasonable, intelligent person would dispute that...but everyone who knows anything at all about Esperanto knows that it is an artificial language.
People who are interested in Esperanto or any other conlang expect to find it in constructed languages and artificial languages. People who are interested in reading about or studying an artificial language such as Esperanto do not care about Russian or Kabardian. By the same token, people who are interested in natural languages are not looking for Esperanto. People who see Esperanto in a list of only natural languages either think that a mistake has been made (if they know what Esperanto is), or they think Esperanto is actually a naturally evolved language (if they don’t know what it really is). By putting Esperanto in this list, you make the page look ridiculous and unprofessional, and you mislead people.
If you want a page that includes ALL languages, both natural and artificial, write it yourself and stop messing this one up. You can put a link in it to natural languages (that page is a disgrace, and it damages the reputations of its contributors).
As for subclasses and divisions, you may do them any way you like on your all-languages page. As for our page of natural languages, we insist on the same privilege. We will divide or comingle living and dead languages as we see fit. —Stephen 11:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Now let's make this discussion emotional by comparing each other to extremists or young children. It suffices if you say my argument is incorrect; you don't have to dditionally insult me in such a way.
Anyway, for someone like me, who uses Esperanto to communicate with his girlfriend and many other friends, it is almost like an insult to say that Esperanto is just "simplified English/Portuguese/German with substitution" and that it is like a roboter. From your comments I can see that despite having learnt Esperanto, you never used in actual communication, and could thus never realise that it's a language in its own right. My mother tongue is German, and I know very well that when I speak Esperanto I am not speaking a "simplied German with substitution". That would sound very different and very silly. I often express myself in Esperanto in ways not possible in German (and when speaking or writing German or English, I sometimes find that I can't express something the way I want to, though I could in Esperanto).
I mentioned High German to show to you that the border between artificial and natural is not as clear cut as your argument requires. Additional examples: What about the "artificial" influence on language use by Academies like the Académie française? What about the "artificial" removement of Danish influence in the Icelandic language a few centuries back? What about "artificial" orthographic reforms like recently in German and Spanish, and less recently in many other languages? What about the "artificial" addition of a new word to a language by a single individual (normally an expert on something) as practiced in all living languages all the time? What about the "artificial" changes made to many European languages based on feminist reasoning? What about the "artificial" creation of specialists' languages like the Aviation English (where words like descend and ascend are not allowed for clarity)?
You still haven't given me a reason why an article called "List of languages" should only contain what you call "natural languages", and not all spoken languages. I think it's a serious discrimination against speakers of any spoken languaeg not included in the list. Wikipedia should not discriminate in such a way! Marcoscramer 16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is a natural worry that admitting so-called conlangs will open the floodgate for languages-invented-by-spotty-teenagers. The discussion above has brought us to the real conclusion that there are no clear ways of dividing one type of language from another. Perhaps,, rather than all of us trying to be lawmakers her (and by that I mean, trying to produce a watertight argument), we should simply state what we want this list to be. Its title is vague, and there is reason to be exclusive: it helps keep the list more manageable. I think it's fair that we direct the reader to other lists of languages. I think, that in the specific case of Esperanto, we can all agree that Esperanto has achieved acceptence far above that of other conlangs. Can we accept that there is a significant grey area here without opening the list to ephemeralia? --Gareth Hughes 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want this to be a "list of languages" as the title suggests. And here we should take "language" to mean what is normally understood: Languages actually used or once actually used, i.e. no language projects which have never succeeded in actually becoming a language (i.e. a living language). By this sensible reading of "list of languages", Esperanto should certainly stay in, and possibly Ido, Interlingua and/or Volapük. I don't think any other conlangs meet the criterion (though this would have to be finally settled through further discussions). Marcoscramer 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signed languages

Additionally, I ask:

Why exclude signed languages?

They are natural linguistic creations of these communities. I would think that these speakers of sign languages have been excluded from their societies enough already.

I move that their languages be included in your lists & other categorizations (no matter the complications this may bring to linguistic description & theory & whatever).

Peace. - Ish ishwar 22:54, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a major cleanup, letter by letter. I'm actually planning to move the Sign language below a different category below the alphabeticized list after I finished the letter Z. If anyone wants to oppose this, please tell me. It won't harm the list and I won't delete any, of course. — N-true 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West & East Gurage

Should West Gurage (Ennemor, Endegen, Masqan, Ezha, Chaha/Cheha, Gumer/Gwemarra and Gura) and East Gurage (Inneqor, Selti, Ulbare, and Wolane) be entered as East Gurage and West Gurage, or should each of the "dialects" be entered as a separate language? Wiwaxia 06:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea; possibly it would be best to wait until somebody writes the relevant articles. The only Gurage language we currently have is Soddo language, which belongs to neither of those. - Mustafaa 09:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think only we should only list East Gurage language, West Gurage language, and Soddo Gurage language; and then the different dialects would be discussed or mentioned under the appropriate language: East Gurage language (dialects: Inneqor, Selti, Ulbarag, and Wolane); Soddo Gurage language (dialects: Soddo and Gogot); West Gurage language (dialects: Masqan, Ezha, Chaha, Gumer, Gura, Gyeto, Ennemor, Enegegny, and Ener). —Stephen 09:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Y languages and Z languages

I'm a little unclear as to why only languages beginning with Y and Z have their own page, and I'm unsure of the logic of how some languages end up on this page (with the complete list) and others only one of those two pages.

I propose that (at least) any Y and Z languages that have wikipedia pages should be included here with the complete list; we would then change the text that reads "only some major languages are included here" to "languages with wikipedia pages are included here" or something similar.

Any objections? --ntennis 03:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion has already occurred on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_spoken_and_sign_languages_beginning_with_the_letter_Y. The outcome was to keep it. However some good suggestions were made which were not followed up on, including moving this page to List of languages by name:Y. I have come to rely on the category pages rather than list pages, but for now i've moved the 'live' language links from the y page to the main list and deleted dead Y links from the main page. ntennis

Now moved List_of_spoken_and_sign_languages_beginning_with_the_letter_Y to List of languages by name: Y and same for Z. ntennis 02:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article on Acholi language is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you can contribute or want it to be improved, you can vote for this article there.--Fenice 16:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of most spoken languages per region?

I've been wondering about the existence of regional statistics for the most spoken languages.

The information that Chinese is the most common language does not really help if, e.g., creating an international website targetted at European users.

Likewise, Spanish may seem like an important language on a world-wide perspective, but the amount of native Spanish speakers in Europe is relatively small.

I guess a list of most spoken languages (native or learnt) per country would be sufficient (a regional list could be derived from that). Right now I can only find a list of official languages per country and a list of most spoken native languages world-wide, neither of which are sufficient (e.g. English is widely understood in many countries accross Europe, but not neccessarily an official (or native) language of every last one of them).

Getting the data might pose a huge problem, tho. I've heard that statistically the three most understood languages in Europe are English, German and French (pretty much in that order), so there have to be some statistics somewhere, though. Ashmodai 11:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You could try browsing the country index of Ethnologue: Ethnologue Country Index, sampling the number of languages per country. I can tell you that Nigeria and Cameroon will score pretty high on the 'languages per country' index, with about 400 and 239 languages respectively (source: African Voices (Web & Kembo-Sure 2000). — mark ✎ 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, and this map is helpful, too, though I'm not sure how it represents some widely spoken languages as every language only gets one red dot. — mark ✎ 16:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] missinig articles

Doing Languages of Ethiopia, I realize that many languages classified by Ethnologue do not even have minimal stubs. With a total of 6,800 (many of which do have Wikipedia articles), if would be useful to start some effort to create the missing articles. The stubs will pretty much have the Ethnologue information and link, and I wonder about copyright (what can we copy directly from ethnologue.com, and what information is proprietary). dab (ᛏ) 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] omgwtf?

there's no space between 'and' and 'germanic' at choise 22 at the A section on the list, can you put one there?? 66.169.1.14 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bunjevac language

Bunjevac language is language.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Languages_of_Serbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevac_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevačke_novine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bács-Bodrog (other languages = 70,545 (for the most part Bunjevac and Šokac))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica (Note: The Bunjevac language is also spoken in Subotica,...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombor (According to the 1910 census, the population of Sombor was 30,593 people of whom 11,881 spoke Serbian language, 10,078 Hungarian language, 6,289 Bunjevac language, 2,181 German language, etc.)

Baćo

Please don't cite Wikipedia itself, this does not count as a proof.
Ethnologue does not list it as a language: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=CS
Furthermore, the Wikipedia article itself claims: The status of the Bunjevac language as a language or even a dialect is vague, and instead it is often considered to be a dialect of Serbian or Croatian. — so the status of this dialect/language is a little disputed. Is there an article List of dialects or List of Serbocroatian dialects? There it might fit. — N-true 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Montenegrin language is also not listed here and people declare in census to speak both, Montenegrin and Bunjevac. So, what criteria you use here to define what is a language and what is not? I see that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian are listed here and they all are nothing else but one same language (Bunjevac and Montenegrin are also that same language). So, if you listed already these four variants, why not list Bunjevac and Montenegrin too? PANONIAN (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point, PANONIAN, I agree. — N-true 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Purpose of this list?

I've just stumblef across this article and am wondering what the point is. Is it intended to become a comprehensive list of all known human languages? Or something else? Dougg 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian Aboriginal languages

Is something missing like AUSTRALIA. Enlil Ninlil 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_languages_0531.html"