Talk:Dzongkha language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dzongkha as a "dialect" of Tibetan
I believe we mislead our readers when we describe Dzongkha as a dialect of Tibetan. That would suggest that native speakers of these languages could understand each other which is not true. What is true is that both languages trace back to a common root, Classical Tibetan, which has died out as a spoken language but is still used in religious contexts (much as Latin is no longer anyone's mother tongue but is a common root of the various Romance languages and is preserved as the international scholarly language of Roman Catholicism). I've changed the article to make the actual relationship of Tibetan and Dzongkha clearer. technopilgrim 19:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I generally agree.(although)I think that the concept of a "Tibetan language" as a modern spoken language is inherently misleading or confused. Tibetan is a classical literary language that has become several distinct local varieties, including Dzongkha. Quite like Latin, as you say. In the case of Tibetan, it seems that some varieties are arbitrarily defined as "dialects of modern spoken Tibetan" (Khams, Amdo, Ü-Tsang, and sometimes the smallish Tibetanoid enclaves of Nepal) while others are arbitrarily defined as separate languages, although none of them are really mutually intelligible. Nevertheless, this is the way they are usually described, so I've attempted to clarify that here and there. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] please add this
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002619.html
- why didn't you add it? this is wikipedia you know.--84.188.165.36 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese claim on Bhutan?
Does China really have a territorial claim on Bhutan? That's news to me. Rhesusman 20:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- You can find a nice summary of Sino-Bhutanese border tensions here:[1]. The relationship deteriorated considerably in November 2005 when China sent troops as far as 20 km inside Bhutan where they built roads and several bridges in the districts of Haa, Paro, Bumthang, and Wangdue Phodrang. Reacting to complaints from Thimphu, the Chinese government said the road building was merely a part of the "economic development program for western China". technopilgrim 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article seems to imply that China claims the entire country as part of itself, which to me is different from border tensions and general disrespect for Bhutanese territorial sovereignty. The "economic development program for western China" statement sounds rather ambiguous - it China could be claiming no more than that the roads built through Bhutanese territory somehow are intended to aid economic development in areas it already controls, but it also could imply that China claims Bhutan as a whole as part of its territory. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but this is a rather dramatic claim. Shouldn't it be on the main Bhutan page (if it's not there already - I don't recall seeing it) where it will get more attention? I'm not sure the page about the Dzongkha language is the best place for this statement. Rhesusman 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Reflecting on what you've said, I agree. Can you rework it? I hit it with a 10 pound sledge hammer, maybe you can give it a good solid tap instead. Ideally, the reader should come away with some context to understand how Beijing's request to eliminate Dzongkha from Microsoft products fits into the larger picture of Sino-Bhutanese relations. technopilgrim 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'll see if I can get around to it, I've had a busy week. Rhesusman 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] number of speakers?
Why is the number of speakers given as only ~1/4 of the population of Bhutan? Potatoswatter 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's how many speak it. Like most countries Bhutan has a wide variety of languages spoken in it. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BT -- Al™ 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)