Talk:Aramaic/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 27 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Aramaic → Aramaic languages – ISO sees Aramaic as a language family or group assigning the ISO 639-5 code arc to it as can be seen in the infobox. The individual language behind the ISO 639-3 code arc is since May 2007 named Imperial Aramaic. According to WP:NCLANG "Language families and groups of languages are pluralized". S.K. (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Compare Arabic and Varieties of Arabic, or Chinese language (singular) and Varieties of Chinese. There was Aramaic (singular) and over time dialects diverged into languages. We have Neo-Aramaic languages for the modern language family. Srnec (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    The one language that you see as the root language IMHO is described in Imperial Aramaic. But the article we’re talking about is about all of those (ancient and modern) languages together. S.K. (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    There was Aramaic before Imperial Aramaic.
    When I click on ISO 639-5, I am told that it is "highly incomplete".
    Our current approach is matched by the Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage.
    In short, I don't see a need to complicate the title, especially when we have the Chinese precedent. Srnec (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    That ISO 639-5 is incomplete might well be, but the case we’re talking about is handled there. And it says: it’s not a single language.
    And regarding Chinese language, I think it’s a bad example: From a linguistic perspective it’s a language family as can be seen in the first sentence already: "Chinese is a group of languages that form the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan languages family" and later "Due to their lack of mutual intelligibility, however, they are classified as separate languages in a family by linguists, who note that the languages are as divergent as the Romance languages." Only that "The spoken varieties of Chinese are usually considered by native speakers to be variants of a single language." S.K. (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    The reason that we don't open this article that way is because we have a different name and a separate article for the still spoken languages: Neo-Aramaic languages. Chinese today is as important as at any point in the past, but the same is not true of Aramaic, which was a major language in the past and a minor one today. Thus, the emphases of the articles differ. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    Could I just interject in the conversation between the two of you? Why is there so much emphasis on what goes on in other articles? Ok, consistency might be a minor consideration, but overwhelmingly...WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS/WP:OTHERCONTENT. Surely the issue is primarily about whether the WP:RS refer to this as a language or a group of languages. Why is there no discussion about that? DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    @DeCausa: Because, as you yourself pointed out below, there is no objective test of what is a dialect and what is a language, from which it follows that there is no objective test of what is a single language (i.e., family of dialects) and what is a language family (i.e., a family of languages). "Aramaic language" is incontestably more common than the plural phrase, but that doesn't really settle anything, since the nom is arguing that this article isn't about the singular Aramaic language. The GEDSH article I cited just moves from talking about The Aramaic language... to the Aramaic languages without explanation. I agree with Ajax below that we do not have to resolve this in the title. Moreover, the NCLANG guideline seems to agree with this reasoning when it says that X languages is preferred over X language family because it leaves the actual nature of the grouping ... an open question, which saves us from nit-picking about the article title. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe there’s no final clear test for what is a language and what is not. But in these cases we follow scholarly consensus. And as you pointed out even in "your" reference Aramaic is seen as a group of languages: "Aramaic itself consists of a great number of language forms (and indeed languages), spoken and written in many different scripts over a period of 3000 years. […] Among the Aramaic languages Syriac is by far the best documented language." S.K. (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, tentatively. What we should be looking at is how it is/they are treated by the RS, rather than other WP articles/lists. ISO is one thing to look at but is not determinant by any means. Having looked at Google books, I have the impression it is treated as a group rather than a single language, e.g.: [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, this is not an area of expertise for me and would welcome evidence from someone with better knowledge of the scholarly literature - happy to change my !vote if warranted. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessarily precise. The current title "unambiguously define[s] the topical scope of the article" and does not preclude Aramaic being a language family. Its advantage is that the arguments above don't need to be settled here. —  AjaxSmack  00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Bingo. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    If you continue reading it says "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines". And we do have NCLANG which is clear about using the plural for language families. And this whole discussion shows the precision is needed: Is someone talking about the whole group of languages or only about one language like e.g. Imperial Aramaic. S.K. (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. It's clear enough as is, and it's no more a language family than English is - the subdivisions are about as different as Australian English is to Indian English and the like to my knowledge, they're mutually intelligible. SnowFire (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    At the moment we have one international standard and five reliable sources seeing Aramaic as a group of languages. We have articles in Wikipedia describing subsets of the languages and language varieties described in this article as independent languages (each with their own sources). Therefore I'm interested in the reliable sources that support the view you describe.
    Aramaic language used to describe the Official or Imperial Aramaic in ISO 639-3 before 2007. So Aramaic should be a DAB page of the form
    Aramaic might refer to
    with the other meanings at Aramaic (disambiguation) included.
    This would help getting a clear picture, if a link is to the whole group of languages or just one variant/language existing at a particular point in time or spoken by a particular group. S.K. (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    Just found one more source: Glottolog
    Reference for the classification given is: Huehnergard, John; Rubin, Aaron D. (2011). "Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages". In Weninger, Stefan (ed.). The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 259–278.
    S.K. (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I think the underlying point is sound, I don't think it necessitates that we change the title of the article. When groups of closely related languages are frequently referred to by a shared name, there's precedent for us just using the bare name to refer to the group – consider Arabic or Nahuatl, for instance. In my view, it'd be more helpful to discuss the language-vs-group status of Aramaic in the article body, while leaving the title as is. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    So we’re in agreement that up to now all reliable sources provided are seeing Aramaic as a group of languages/language family. We’re only discussing if the title should be Aramaic or Aramaic languages.
    But then I don’t see, why we should follow the very few exception precedents when NCLANG says different and we have plenty precedence for following NCLANG in Category:Language families.
    • Chinese is a precedent of "A language is a language family with one army and one flag" (not applicable here).
    • "Nahuatl … is a language or, by some definitions, a group of languages": Not applicable here.
    • Arabic is described in its article and in Classification of Arabic languages more as a language with varieties than a language family. Assuming this is scholary consensus, the example would not be applicable as well.
    In summary I’m not convinced by the arguments for keeping the title as Aramaic. S.K. (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Simple "Aramaic" and "Aramaic language" (singular) are vastly more common than the plural. See, e.g., Aramaic: A History of the First World Language, described by its publisher as "the first complete history of Aramaic from its origins to the present day." I don't agree with the suggestion above that Imperial Aramaic be described as a member of the Aramaic languages. I would prefer to say that it is a stage (and perhaps written register) in the history of Aramaic. Do Old English, Middle English and Modern English constitute a language family? Srnec (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I‘m surprised that given you‘re statements that it’s so hard to come up with WP:RS that support your point. Glottolog is based on scholary sources by a renowned research institution and used for the majority of Wikipedia language articles as reference. I‘d expected better arguments than „I don’t agree“. S.K. (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    From the volume just cited: "we can speak about Aramaic as one entity". Srnec (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the quote, but it always helps reading on (bold from me):

    The overarching concept of Aramaic, strictly a historical-linguistic abstraction, is made more concrete by various terms for the various Aramaic languages (or dialects, where we are mainly dealing with regional vernaculars without a written tradition; the neutral term variety includes both categories). […] Or scholars use the same terms to refer to different historical periods, as with "Old Aramaic" or "Imperial Aramaic." Others still are just misleading, such as "Modern Syriac" for the modern spoken languages, which do not directly descend from Syriac. When discussing what a certain word or phrase is "in Aramaic" then, we always have to specify which period, region, or culture is meant unlike Classical Latin, for instance.

    — Gzella, Holger. Aramaic. A History of the First World Language. p. 4. ISBN 9780802877482.
    BTW, on the previous page there’s a footnote referencing the article "Phyla and Waves" given above as reference from Glottolog.
    How more clear do we need a reference? S.K. (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's ironic that Gzella should speak of "Classical Latin", which differs from Latin in that the latter may also refer to Medieval Latin, Renaissance Latin, or New Latin. Should Latin be a dab page linking to all these articles and the article currently at Latin moved to Latin languages? I think that would do a disservice to readers (see my reply below). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    It’s ironic, that you use (as was done already multiple times in this discussion) an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, when there’s a WP:RS cited on the concrete point of the discussion that in it’s last sentence explicitly states (translated from English to Wikipedian): "Aramaic is a word that needs disambiguation".
    But to take up that point anyway: Latin is described in its article as one language with different historical varieties, while Aramaic is described by all WP:RS presented up to now and also by Gzella as a language family:

    For the most part, Aramaic is thus studied as a crucial but subservient element in several well-established, mainly philological and historical disciplines and social sciences. Even in the academic world, only few people see any inherent value that transcends the disciplinary boundaries in this language family.

    — Gzella, Aramaic. p. 5
    So the other case is again not applicable/comparable to the point we’re discussing here. S.K. (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    Gzella says that when discussing a particular 'Aramaic' word or phrase it should always be specified which variety of Aramaic we're talking about. But that is actually also true for discussing a particular 'Arabic' word or phrase, and to an extent even for discussing a certain 'Latin' word or phrase. What Gzella doesn't say is that when discussing, e.g., more general traits of Aramaic, or languages in general, one always needs to speak of 'Foo Aramaic' or 'Bar Aramaic', and never simply of 'Aramaic'.
    But yes, Aramaic might be different from Arabic and Latin. It's certainly true that Arabic and Latin are not normally called language families. But what you seem to be missing the whole time here is that Gzella and other sources do commonly call that language family 'Aramaic'. It's simply a common name. It doesn't matter for our purposes that it refers both to a language and a language family: we can explain that in our article. What you would need to show to make your point is that scholars more often use "Aramaic languages" then "Aramaic" to refer to the phenomenon. But they don't. They say 'Aramaic', then carefully specify that it may refer to multiple languages, only to go on and use 'Aramaic', satisfied that the ambiguity has been clarified. This is simply conventional use of words, and we should follow that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    What you seem to be missing is we’re not talking about language usage in general where from a pragmatic or efficiency point of view one can and does use a simplified form such as 'Aramaic' to refer to the language family or one of its varieties. Inside the article 'Aramaic languages' for example it’s absolutely acceptable to do so.
    But we’re discussing the title of the article which sets/establishes the context you’re talking about: Is the article about the language family as a whole or is the article about one of the language varieties for which the common name 'Aramaic' is used as well? And for setting this context/deciding the title WP:NCLANG#Languages families is very clear: "Language families and groups of languages are pluralized".
    So no, not I have to establish why the title should be 'Aramaic languages' but it is up to those arguing for a different title to justify why this convention shouldn’t be followed. And all attempts like referring OTHERCONTENT failed to convince.
    With it being established that Aramaic is referring both to the language family as well as individual varieties of it, even the argument from AjaxSmack about WP:PRECISION fails because the statement "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" already fails the precondition of "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" if Aramaic would be the title. S.K. (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack, and per the fact that 'Aramaic' is very commonly used to refer to any of its variants. It would help though if the lead would sooner and more clearly specify that it's also a language family. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    But if we have one word that has multiple meanings, we’ve a concept for that: WP:DAB. S.K. (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, but the other topics (Imperial Aramaic, Eastern Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic, Neo-Aramaic, etc.) are already naturally disambiguated from Aramaic. Only if there would be a need to have two separate articles Aramaic (language) and Aramaic (language family) would we need a dab page. Again, it's like Arabic: the term may in principle refer to any of its variants, but anyone who would want to specify that would speak of Egyptian Arabic, etc. Would it make sense to turn Arabic into a dab page and move that article to Arabic languages? Wouldn't that create a wrong impression that there is no one language commonly called 'Arabic'? Now I'm not familiar enough with Aramaic to be sure whether the situation is entirely comparable here, but it would seem to be so to me? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    If you look at the quote above in everyday language it’s often unclear what exactly is meant with "Aramaic“. So while there would be distinct names, often the usage is not that sharp. A DAB page would force the users to be precise: are they meaning the language family or are they meaning one of the varieties? S.K. (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Do you mean that it would force editors to be more precise? Because that would indeed be a significant advantage, but it would also contravene the generally acknowledged principle that readers come first. Readers looking for Aramaic may be better served by a broad-concept article that clearly explains in the lead that Aramaic is a language with many varieties, linking to all of them. See Wikipedia:Broad-concept article: A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The aramaic language is one language with variuous dialects

The Aramaic language is one language with various dialects. Syriac is the best development of Aramaic. However the dialects of Aramaic are at the end one language.

Same with Arabic. Arabic is another language with various dialects. However it is one and the same language at the end. 89.205.139.73 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Without any WP:reliable sources this is at the moment just an opinion. Would be good if you could back up your view with appropriate references. Thanks. S.K. (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Famously, there is no objective test of what is a dialect and what is a language. It’s a continuum. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Update: A language is a dialect with an ISO-code and a (planned or existing) Bible translation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with DeCausa.
Also, as explained at Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions#Languages this continuum spreads to languages/dialects with other names.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Name

What is your name 2405:201:AC02:B2AB:A0F2:1A2E:88F1:C810 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Territorial distribution

could someone put some labels on that map so you can more readily see where in the world it is. Gjxj (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aramaic/Archive_2&oldid=1191740839"