Talk:Languages of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Suggested Improvements 2 Comment on the map 3 Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) 4 tamil aspirates 5 Cleanup 6 Removed section 7 Telugu 8 Maps 9 Going forward 9.1 Notes 10 Gender vs. measure words 11 Less mentions of Marathi language 12 Vandalism and POV 13 Beyond the conflict 14 Classical languages 15 Language conflicts 16 Requested move 16.1 Survey 16.2 Discussion 17 Changing section order 18 map title? 19 Map needed 20 Austro-Asiatic

[edit] Suggested Improvements

• Flesh out the main body of the article. How about a set of tables giving the number of people speaking each language as their first tongue?
• Each state should be listed in a table, with the first (and, if possible second) language(s) listed
• The detailed work on phonetics and alphabet should be moved to a sub-article once the main article has been expanded. It's really far too detailed to be of any use to a casual reader but I suspect it's not rigorous enough right now to avoid offending an expert.
• Despite the suggestions above, we should avoid turning this into a massive set of lists (which is what has happened to the Native American languages article)

Sadly, I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to act on my own suggestions here, so I'll go and try to be more useful somewhere else. However, I'd love to see this article get on the main page someday... Kayman1uk 10:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the map

A nitpick, but the state of Andhra Pradesh has been labelled as 'andhra' in Telugu on the map. Given that we've added the appelation 'pradesh' to all other states having 'pradesh' in their names, I think it makes stylistic sense to label Andhra Pradesh as 'ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్', and not simply 'ఆంధ్ర', as it is labelled now.

[edit] Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)

Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tamil aspirates

"This classification is observed in all the languages under discussion" - what about tamil, which doesn't even have aspirated consonants except when special characters are used for writing Sanskrit (Granthakshara)?--Grammatical error 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please reword it. See Tamil language#Phonology. I'm not an expert on such issues; but, one can ask Arvind for any clarifications. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've refactored the lead per WP:LEAD. This article needs a lot of improvement. Currently, beyond the lead, there's nothing except the alphabets. We need to somehow shed our inclination to mention data about individual languages and [instead] create a proper encyclopaedic article on the subject at hand. We need good maps as in African languages and the layout could be a modified version of Gbe languages. Because all the Gbe languages are linguistically related, they were able to talk about language features, whereas, we need to have smaller summary subsections talking about features of the 4 linguistic families plus Andamanese languages. A good test for not wavering beyond the topic is the extent to which we avoid mention of individual languages in favour of language families. The lead section should ideally be the only place for their mention. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head, and good job on the lead, that looks very good. The alphabets section needs to be shortened (and/or split into writing systems and phonology which is what much of it is really about), and then you're right the article needs some expansion on the various families. They should get space relative to the number of speakers of each family, though not exactly proportional. The Gbe languages article is a good model for what to cover, but we should work on a proposed outline of what the article should ideally cover, then we can go do some research to get good sources to cite. General linguistis topics would be history, writing system, phonology, morphology, syntax (grammar), and maybe a bit on corpus linguistics and translation. I fear that if we cover that four times the article may be unwieldy, though maybe not it we don't create that many subsections for each of the language families. The smaller families could just have one or two paragraphs that summarize all of that. Should the major subsections be the topics I listed above or should it be the 4 or so language families and then cover those topics in each section? - Taxman ^Talk 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, thanks for your outline above and the copyedit done by you. The outline sounds good. We could add a distribution map if there's a definitive source. This book and others from CIIL can be useful. This, being an important main article related to India, merits good attention. Hope more editors join in the effort to improve it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but which outline do you think would work better (my last question)? It would be hard to switch. - Taxman ^Talk 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of the semantics, I lean in favour of the former. But, we need not have subsections for each language family; we could just have paragraphs. The other outline doesn't sound bad either. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I support the former. The article will need to discuss how the language families have influenced each other in grammar (e.g. the Tolkappiyam's rather strained identification of seven cases), phonology (retroflexes in Indo-Aryan), morphology and vocabulary, and it will need to do so in the context of theories such as Murray Emeneau's model of the Indian linguistic area. It seems to me we can best do this with a structure that discusses the families together, rather than separately. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the scope of the article? Languages native to India? If no,t we can also include Portuguese, French, (I don't know if Dutch was ever spoken in Kerala), and Aramaic. Pali seems to be absent, so too NE languages. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it depends on the data for the number of speakers. I would propose the coverage should be balanced by that and importance/ other factors. The article would be remiss without mention of English's role, but it seems like it would be better off without a linguistic coverage of it, instead just a survey of the role it has/had. Pali is Indo-European, so it should be covered in that context. What do you mean by NE - Northern European? And please comment on which approach to the layout you prefer based on the above. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NE = North East India, one of the most poorly documented regions of India. Sundar, maps shouldn't be a problem anymore since we've got a featured SVG map. Basic drawing using inkscape would solve the problem. Having subsections for each language family might lead to the page becoming too cluttered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If we get some data on Portugeese, French, Dutch and possibly Hebrew speakers, we could, in the interests of completeness, make a mention in a single line or a short paragraph. Yes, even I've observed the poor coverage on NE here and elsewhere. Let's do proper justice to those language families as well. Glad to know that maps are not a problem. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cochini jews had a special dialect, often called Judaeo-Malayalam which might be interesting enough to mention. We should also at least mention the existence of pockets of native speakers of Goan Portuguese (does it differ from "Standard Portuguese"?) and English since those have deep roots. Chinese and other immigrant languages probably don't merit a mention. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

I removed the following text as too detailed on one language and innacurate anyway:

Urdu is unique among Indian languages. Grammatically it is 'genetically' linked to the older language of Prakrit. Much of its vocabulary is derived from neighboring Arabic, Turkish, Farsi and Sanskrit. Indeed, Urdu is the Turkish word for "camp", "tent", or "military encampment". Urdu arose due to contact between the Mughal armies and speakers of the local derivatives of Sanskrit and Prakrit. It has since evolved into a rich independent language. The modern Urdu script evolved from the Arabic script. It was introduced via Persia by invading Mughal armies, and was fitted to the local Indian phonology. Thus, even though Urdu is deeply connected with other Indian languages, and its phonology differes from that of Hindi by only six sounds, its script shows no influence from neighboring Indian alphabets.

It has grains of truth but makes it sound like Urdu is unrelated to Hindi, which no scholars would support. Besides it's too much detail for one language and I'm not sure it should be in even if properly balanced. I made other changes to start working towards what was discussed above. I'll need to go get some more sources to do much more. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, Taxman. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu

I have removed "italian of the east" . Telugu is much more sweeter and italian does not stand anywhere near it. There is no need to add such old colonial phrases in the languages of India article.Bharatveer 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would cringe at including subjective things such as comparing the 'sweetness' of a language, I would, however, disagree on the contention that the phrase in question is a relic of colonial-era thinking. The sobriquet was originally given by Sir CP Brown, one of the few Telugu authors of European descent, and a person who was far removed from colonial era prejudices. He's a friend, not a foe.

[edit] Maps

Can Nichalp or someone else go to this site, select "culture" in the "journey highlights" and grab the information required for creating maps for linguistic distribution, by clicking on "modern language distribution" etc., Since it's in flash, I'm not able to get absolute URLs. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the screenshot of an enlarged version (showing Asia) here. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going forward

Let's start working with the layout suggested by Taxman above. Each of us shall take up some tasks and take the article forward.

• For writing systems, which are the ones prevailing here? Brahmic scripts, Konyak orthography^[1] then?

• Don't we need to talk about epigraphy?

• Language mutual influence (examples have been cited by Arvind above)

A number of ebooks are available at CIIL's site.

By the way, another article languages in India would have a different scope and perspective, wouldn't it? I can imagine that article talking about the language movements, influence on our polity, states reorganisation, political integration, language law ^[2] etc., Pretty interesting, isn't it? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oughtn't we to also discuss some of that here? I'd think the article would be incomplete if it didn't at least summarise the basics of the legal and social status of the various languages in India today.

And shall we try to put together a more detailed outline here first, before going on to actually write it? -- Arvind 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Can you place a tentative outline at /Draft? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't classification be the first section in order to introduce the families? That could use a nice table of languages and their classification and perhaps a map or a chart too. Anyone? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ http://www.ciil-ebooks.net/html/konyak/index1.html
2. ^ http://www.ciil-ebooks.net/html/langLaw/coverpage.html

[edit] Gender vs. measure words

Bengali language has numerical classifiers similar to the East Asian languages, and does not have masculine/feminine grammatical gender like most Indian and European languages do. Is this also true of other languages in eastern India? --JWB 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less mentions of Marathi language

Surprised to see that there are very few mentions of Marathi language in this article.There's very few information given about Marathi.Im not a expert but perhaps what's relevant to Hindi,Bengali,Punjabi and Gujarati is also obvious to Marathi,but those mentions have not been given.

Marathi is an important language hence please give an comprehensive information about it here(just like Tamil/Kannada and Hindi). (mahawiki 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

In an article on a country with so many languages there is very little space for each individual langauge. The answer is probably not to add more information on a particluar language, but to remove some of the mentions of others and replace it with general information about language families. The only time a specific language should be mentioned is when some unique feature of them is important enough to justify it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and POV

It seems that certain users insist on pushing their POV on the declaration of Tamil as a 'Classical language'. Sarvagnya insists on including "While the experts consulted by the government refused to endorse Tamil's case"... in the article. The citation provided by him in support of this says: "...despite the objections of experts it consulted and after a committee it had appointed refused to recommend it. It is not the government's business to tinker with such cultural issues as language and literature, the president and secretary of the Sahitya Akademi, the academy of letters, who were members of a 'committee on languages' specifically wrote to the government. No government in any country has found it necessary to sit in judgement and 'declare' if a language is 'classical? or not. An effort was made to convince the establishment that language does not need to be declared ?classical?."

Read in full the news article says simply this: The experts in the committee were reluctant about tagging any language as a so-called 'classical'. There was no opposition to Tamil due to its apparent ineligibility to be declared as such. Sarvagnya's version give such a picture. Sarvagnya's insistence in reverting repeatedly to his version shows a desperate and immature desire to somehow show Tamil in a less than desirable light. This needs to be seen along with his other immature edits in this article and elsewhere:

• In the Classical language article where he defames Devaneya Pavanar by calling him a crackpot
• In the Languages of India article he uses the pejorative "jokers" in the ref tag seemingly commenting on Jayalalitha and others.

In my opinion this is nothing other than disruption. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Parthi's comments above. Also, if we include this one (only?) news item to show a political motivation for this tag, we should also include Hart's and other scholars' opinions that argue the opposite. Lotlil 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Sarvagna's insistance on using such language seems churlish. The content has to sound encyclopaedic, at least. I have added a "Citationcheck" tag to the "classical languages" section for now. --Amit 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What sentence in that section now isn't verified by the reference? Would you care to point out please? Gnanapiti 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Citecheck" tag. I've also changed "declared Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opionion" to "declared Sanskrit and Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opinion". This should address Parthi's concern above. -- Amit 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The text in the "language conflicts" section read "..the union government in 2004 elevated Tamil to a newly created official status of classical language together with Sanskrit..". The "together with Sankrit" doesn't fit in this section either stylistically or factually. Stylistically, the reference to Sanskrit is out of place in this sentence. It would merit a different sentence on its own; however such a sentence would be irrelevant in a "conflicts" section since the status of Sanskrit has never been the subject of debate. Secondly, Sanskrit was not declared classical along with Tamil; the declaration of Sanskrit as a classical language postdated the declaration of Tamil as such by a year. Ive deleted the "along with Sanskrit" from this section.

Please sign your names ev'body Amit 04:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we nuke the entire second paragraph ("govt of india assuages ...") of the "Language conflicts" section. It's utter trash and doesn't belong here. This is not a newspaper column. Amit 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the conflict

While I agree that NPOV needs to be brought in the "classical" languages section, are people willing to work towards improving this very important article? There have been discussions in the past at #Cleanup and #Going forward. Any volunteers? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical languages

This section seemed to focus a little too much on "official" classical languages. Since this article is about "Languages of India" and not "Official status of Indian languages", it seemed to me that it should have a broader focus, also discussing languages that are considered classical in the academic literature regardless of what the Government of India says. So I've gone ahead and taken a stab at expanding it. I'm fairly sure I've read stuff in the Annals of Oriental Research (Madras) which discusses the "classicity" of the Telugu of the Andhra Mahabharata, early Kannada literature and a couple of Prakrits other than Maharashtri, but I can't remember where and when. Anyway, hopefully my additions are a base upon which others more familiar with the sources can build. -- Arvind 20:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Arvind, for expanding the section. Hope someone will take the trouble of going through the references, or may be I'll get around to doing it sometime. We'll need to update the Classical languages article too to bring it in line with this one.

Also, let's please keep the discussions on this page, as some discussions seem to have continued on Arvind's talk page. Amit 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Arvind. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language conflicts

This section needs to be renamed and the coverage needs to be broader. For example, if it doesn't mention the struggle by Potti Sreeramulu, it's incomplete to say the least. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's this section gone to? Communalism (South Asia) links to it and it seems to have disappeared.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. It was so poorly cited and imbalanced, that I can't say I disagree with the removal. While there does need to be a section covering language conflict, and some of that does need to cover the Hindi issue, it needs to be redone I think. Sundar, what did you have in mind for a proper section title? - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Changing section order

I suggest switching the position of "Official Languages" and "Classical langs of India" sections. What say thee? Amit@Talk 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map title?

Why does the map title say people's republic of china in chinese? 154.20.115.35 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map needed

Can we get a map showing the locations of the actual languages (not language families)? 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Austro-Asiatic

It needs to be stated which language(s) are Austro-Asiatic in India (the purple areas on the map). 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)