|Indo-Aryan languages has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Language. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Kannada should not be included in Indo-Aryan
- 2 Mitanni
- 3 Classification
- 4 Classification
- 5 Seeking help and contribution
- 6 Merge with List
- 7 Pulling in stuff from German article
- 8 Chronology of attestation
- 9 Map
- 10 Burrowed Words=
- 11 kurds are aryan race
- 12 Dialect continuum
- 13 "Indo-Aryan" and related Categories defined Incorrectly
- 14 Number of speakers
- 15 Untitled
- 16 Orphaned references in Indo-Aryan languages
- 17 Map
- 18 Vedic Sanskrit = Proto-Indo-Aryan?
- 19 wordlist
Kannada should not be included in Indo-Aryan
In the Language Comparison chart of this article, Kannada language should not be included as it's very obvious it's not the part of Indo-Aryan or Indo-European sect but rather it belongs to the Dravidian family group.
- Don't agree, --Onegoal91 (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC).
- Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems strange that Mitanni language would be Indo-European if its speakers are hurrian?
- no, the Mitanni nobility were indo-aryan, ruling over a hurrian population.
there was some confusion as to which language should be labeled "mitanni", but the term generally refers to the upper-class indo-aryan language now.see Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni dab (ᛏ) 07:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Ethnologue classification, which we repeat here, seems a bit idiosyncratic - making Eastern Punjabi closer to Hindi than to western Punjabi, standard Hindi and the western Hindi dialects closer to Gujarati than to the eastern Hindi dialects; the Bihari dialects closer to Bengali than to Eastern Hindi...Britannica, as copied on this page, gives what appears to me to be a more standard classification of the Indo-Aryan languages. Should we perhaps report both? as alternatives? k 21:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think perhaps another classification should be used. Also, Nuristani and Dardic as Indo-Aryan? There is not a consensus on Dardic, but I have seen Nuristani as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. Perhaps some of us can come up with a better classification and to clean up the article a bit. Imperial78
The term Aryan needs some mention. The link to Aryan gives this text: The word Aryan was originally used in various Indo-Iranian languages with a meaning roughly similar to "noble" or "honorable", and was sometimes used by the speakers of these languages to refer to themselves. but it should be part of this page rather than relying on a link to a different topic which has a sub-note explaining what, to it, is a different topic - if that makes sense.
We desperately need a good classification system for these languages. At the moment, we use a mixture of the Ethnologue system (unsatisfactory) with some excentric additions. I just came across West and Southwest Indo-Aryan languages, and it doesn't seem to make much sense of anything. You might be interested in Linguasphere's statistical classification, which can be seen in PDF here. — Gareth Hughes 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any sense at all. The classification is "Western" and "Southern" Indo-Aryan. I am starting the articles Southern Indo-Aryan languages and Western Indo-Aryan languages and I will redirect as much as I can. However West and Southwest Indo-Aryan languages needs to be deleted. Krankman 10:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Seeking help and contribution
We apreciate your valuable contribution in article named Wikipedia:Indic transliteration scheme on english WIkipedia.
We at Marathi Language wikipedia do not have enough expertise to update IPA related info in our article, specialy we have been unable to import/update IPA templates and do not know how to use IPA symbols.Please click here-this link- to provide help to update "IPA transliteration for Indic Languages" article for Marathi wikipedia
We seek and request for help in updating above mentioned article and would like to know relevant resources and refferences in respect of Devanagari and IPA .
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Merge with List
I agree, it should be merged - the list should be the main thing, and here there should only be a link to the list. This is the way it's done in a lot of other language articles. --Cbdorsett 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm lost; to what are you referring and to whom are you replying? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Pulling in stuff from German article
The German de:Indoarische Sprachen just got a major overhaul, won the 4th prize in the semi-annual writing competetioon there and is on the way to featured. So perhaps someone here may be interested to pull some some content from that article. (Being not a native speaker of English I myself prefer doing translations to, not from German). --Pjacobi 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chronology of attestation
Vedic Sanskrit is an earlier linguistic stage than Prakrits, but as far as concrete physical attestation, the Prakrits are actually attested first (in the Asoka inscriptions, which should probably be mentioned in this article). AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The first map says that Urdu is only a lingua franca with no prevalence as first language. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Urdu has millions of first language speakers in India and Pakistan.
I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
kurds are aryan race
- There is no such thing as aryan race. Read up on Race (classification of humans) to see what the scientific community thinks about layman use of the term. Chartinael (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The text in the Dialect Continuum section was copied from the Dialect Continuum article. I changed text where I thought appropriate. But the author seems to discuss only the dialect continuum of the Hindi dialects, and doesn't touch upon the other Indic. The author of that section mentions some other languages, and points out that out of these, Punjabi may be most reasonably included in this continuum.
Of course, the author(s) who contributed that section isn't necessarily correct. But I took the information from that article, and changed some text to better clarify the information based on that interpretation.184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that needs some work. Hindi isn't a dialect continuum, it's only part of one. The criterion is whether people consider their language to be Hindi, not whether it's mutually intelligible or has intermediate varieties. — kwami (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Nepali certainly borrows a lot of words from Hindi. Whether you can find a Hindi word in a Nepali dictionary or not, it's usually readily understood by nominal Nepali speakers. Nevertheless Nepali uses different pronouns and different verb conjugationss. That could be a pretty good indicator of which language you are actually speaking at a particular moment! Based on conjugations perhaps there isn't a true dialect continuum, although you could also argue for a continuum if you ignore that and only look at word stems. LADave (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- A dialect continuum is really continuous only at the level of (usually) traditional rural dialects, where neighbouring settlements (villages, for example) use varieties which are almost imperceptibly different from each other, not on the level of standardised national languages, which are based on points in the continuum which are usually too widely spaced out to be nearly as similar. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
First, I am not sure where the Categorization and Definition of Indo-Aryan came from, but the concept in its current form does not appear to exist outside of what has been created here on Wikipedia. Can we have more non-wikipedia sources on this term? My understanding is that the earliest written evidence of a anyone refering to themself as 'Aryan' in ethnicity is from the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great who was a Persian. Whereas here, we have now changed the concept to distinctly "Indian". This entire content on Wikipedia, as well as the related articles, sounds like POV to me and needs revisiting and edited with actual non-wikipedia-derived sources. PenningtonClassical (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I thought it was pretty much universally acknowledged that there is no such thing as Aryan. I'm thoroughly confused after reading this page. would someone care to explain to me how it became OK to use this word to denote any particular people,language or w/e? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I too wish to know about this discrepancy.Aryan is a word mired in racism and outside of Sanskrutam meanings of noble has no physical definition attached to it. So why is it being used as a definition for a peoples/language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer "Indic". I believe the problem is that Dravidian speakers (and maybe Munda or other) object that "Indic" implies "Indian", which could mean all of them. "Aryan" means Indic + Iranian. (As in the "Aryan invasion" of India.) "Indo-Arian" therefore means the cross-section of Indian × Aryan -- that is, "Indic" sensu stricto. All of this will be explained in any basic volume on Indic or even Indo-European languages. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your explanation here sounds a bit confused. The term "Aryan" simply refers to what is now more usually called "Indo-Iranian", in the historically justified sense (the wider meaning "Indo-European" is obsolete and was never really justified, but admittedly handy if confusing due to its ambiguity – the "Aryan" in "Aryan race" refers to Indo-European, not specifically Indo-Iranian). "Indo-Aryan", then, simply refers to the branch of Aryan that is spoken in India (or the Indian subcontinent more generally). We cannot simply call the Indo-Aryan languages "Indian" because that is a geographical (or even political) reference which would cause ambiguity: the Dravidian languages and others are just as Indian as they are.
- "Aryan" refers primarily to a language family, though the community who spoke the Indo-Iranian parent language (Proto-Indo-Iranian) could also be called "(the original) Aryans" (currently sought in the Poltavka culture or Sintashta culture). In a linguistic sense, of course, anybody whose native language is an Indo-Iranian language might be called "Aryan". (Full bilinguals and multilinguals are a complication, though, and multilingualism is notoriously frequent in India: what if a person speaks Hindi and English equally natively?) A language-independent ethnic meaning is much more difficult to define as it is not nearly as clear-cut, and once you refer to biological ancestry that is where race and racism come in. Does an aborigine from the Andaman Islands who speaks Hindi as his native language and not a word of any Andamanese language count as "Aryan"? How about people with mixed Andamanese-aboriginal and North Indian heritage? What about Veddas from Sri Lanka who speak only Singhalese, or East-Asian-looking people from Nepal who happen to speak Nepali as their only language? Indo-Aryan languages are spoken as far afield as Fiji and Suriname, creating the potential for more unusual combinations. (It has been pointed out frequently that at least in a linguistic sense, Romani speakers are Aryan and German speakers are not). Some monolingual German speakers have not a drop of European blood in them (case in point: Philipp Rösler, whose biological parents were Vietnamese, but he has never met them and no connection to Vietnam), demonstrating that language, material culture and biological ancestry can be completely separate. A racial essentialist would never accept that a person with very dark skin or East Asian appearance (and matching genetic markers) could ever be a "real" German, because he sees "Germanness" as exclusively based on biology. But that's arbitrary and unscientific, of course. There's nothing racist or otherwise deeply problematic about talking of "Aryan languages" (in the sense of "Indo-Iranian languages"), though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Number of speakers
In its current form, the introduction says there are 1.5 billion speakers. It also later says there are more than 900 million native speakers. This last number might mean the sum of the speakers of the specific languages listed, but I did the math and got 800 million. If it means native speakers of all languages, why the discrepancy with 1.5 billion? Maybe 900 million are native speakers, where as 1.5 billion includes non-native speakers? I don't know the answers to all these questions, but it'd be good if someone who does edits this. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Indo-Aryan languages
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indo-Aryan languages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NE":
- From Chittagonian language: Nationalencyklopedin "Världens 100 största språk 2007" The World's 100 Largest Languages in 2007
- From Punjabi language: Nationalencyklopedin "Världens 100 största språk 2010" The World's 100 Largest Languages in 2010
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
According to this map on Ethnologue, there are two non-scheduled Indo-Aryan languages spoken in far southern India, but our map does not hint to this. I do understand that our map is rough, but still. --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Vedic Sanskrit = Proto-Indo-Aryan?
This article states that Vedic Sanskrit is the proto-language of this family. In other words (although the article does not phrase it this way) Vedic Sanskrit is identical to Proto-Indo-Aryan, just as, in fact, Latin (leaving aside the question of Old, Classical, or Vulgar, etc.) is identical to Proto-Romance. However (I can look up some sources later) I had thought it was widely accepted that there are horizontal differences between Classical Sanskrit and Vedic, i.e. the former represents a slightly different dialect than the latter; or, at least, the various vernacular dialects that developed into the Prakrits represent dialectical differences that already existed in the Vedic period; and, at least, if we count Dardic as part of Indo-Aryan, it seems surprising to think that Kashmiri, etc. would be direct descendents of Vedic. No, my impression was that there is thought to be an earlier, unattested form lying behind all of the attested Indo-Aryan languages.—21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. It was added as the equivalent to the ancestral-form field of the language info box, but the family box only allows for the protolanguage. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The unsourced wordlist contradicts in many cases the entries in en.wiktionary "Indo-European languages", with many unlinked examples, thus suspicious of being "ghost words" or mistranslations! HJJHolm (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)