Template talk:Indo-Iranian languages

Notes

I think that we should add to this temlate the Luri language. --xRiffRaffx 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No opposition. I added it. --xRiffRaffx 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitanni language

I belive this is agglutinative language like summerian and is unrelated to the other languages except Uratu of the area. Maybe Hattic language Enlil Ninlil 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

But their upper classes spoke a language which is thaught to be Indic rather than Iranian.

See Robert S.P. Beekes (1995)Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Too big

The box is becoming too huge. It was bound to. Why not have four boxes for the four sub-families of Indo-Iranian? Maquahuitl^talk! 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The box is OK. But the Indic group deserves a separate box. I do not see anu need of having an Indo-Iranian template. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But i heavily support having this Indo-Iranian template, it's OK --Parthava (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The affiliation between Iranian and Indic is not a solid one. It is as strong as each are with Slavic and Baltic. (All are Satem languages, and honestly Baltic shows strong resemblance with Sanskrit). The only fact which led the linguist to construct the Indo-Iranian (hypo)thesis was the fact that vestan and Sanskrit were similar, but that was not surprising because we did not have as ancient languages in either Baltic or Slavic. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You, yourself mentioned linguistics, So it's linguistics thesis, Also Mazanderani (my mother tongue) resembles sanskrit, Even some local linguistics believe that the eastern-most spoken dialect of mazanderani is actually a sanskrit dialect, So it's steel a live language. Also the relation of iranian and indic languages is different by other groups, Persian was the first tongue of many of people even in western regions of thailand --Parthava (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mazandarani does not resemble Sanskrit. It is a northwestern Iranian language. It is fair that you can regard it as an offspring of Parthian. But if you have reliable sources , please share it with us. Persian in Thailand? never!!! Who says this????--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just mean miyanmar, not thailand! Yeah mazanderani shares some part of it's vocabulary with sanskrita, Ofcourse i can't talk about kartavilian, Since i have not enough info about it, I saw both in books someyears ago, But 4 Tapurian & SAnskrtia please search it's encyclopedia in libraries (Author: Jehungir Nasr Eshrefi ;)--Parthava (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Noone said that Mazandarani annd Kartvelian (Georgian) were family language, but it is a fact that mazandaranis have Georgian paternal roots. Maternal roots were predominantly Mazandarani and that why the language is still Mazandarani. In fact there were many Georgian men imported in mazandaran but they married there, assimilated and their children spoke MAzandarani. As for Sanskrit and Mazandarani, I will check Jahangir Ashrafi (why do you spell like the PanTurkists from Arran?) I have not heard of the name and I cannot judge if it is reliable. Myanmar= Burma and therfore I still say that Persian was not spoken there. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not important, nor would be important where and when persian was being spoken, Never talk again about persian, You started again? if Georgian mens melted to mazanderani mainstream, So perhaps based on your thesis, Aranis, armenis, gileks are all georgians! The amazing part is that georgians were with their family in mazanderan as well as armenis ... I never heared about Pan-turkist from Arrans, who are they? And what is their job? ,..., I spelled like what i comfortable by it --Parthava (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so rude? I know you wrote some articles on Mazandarani Wikipedia using the Panturkist alphabet. Like a panturkist you have some grudges against Georgians. Moreover you do not know any thing about history. Otherwise would not talk nonsense about Persian in Mianmar or bullshit that panturkists spread. Armenians and Georgians were not with their families. You know some families now and think that was allways like this.To be honest with you I doubt even that you are Mazandarani. One more time do not be rude. And I hope you do not change your name to Eli or Pertheve,only becaue Panturkists do not like the letter a.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

what is rude? Humm... It's our scripture which turks are going to adapting it, They were writing & still writing in Cyrillic, OK, I'm nonesense developer (in the minds of some people like you), Yes you are right, if you were really looking for peace with two georgian and caspian nations (which are both caucasian based) i never saw these such messages from you, instead you just negotiating to ka.wikipedia's sysops to adding diq, glk, mzn interwikis into their main page, Yeah i'm not mazanderani, because nevertheless they are the great people without anymore specimen allround the world, while you remarked me as rude, We can schedule time to having meeting in caspia, where i can prove that all people from Gorji Melles have no fair skin, Also my name could be Eli, Ali uses more energy to pronouncing it, but spelling Parthava gives me power to being alive, Pertheve not --Parthava (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

there are people here who are paid to make tensions. I am not one of them. In fact Im against them--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Turks write cyrlic? Are you ok in your head? I knew that Brenda Shaffer's gang were crazy but I thought they could speak English. Not speaking English isnt a bad thing, but talking nonsense is. Believe it or not I could not follow even one sentence of yours--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I am so happy that you come compromise with me, As i cann't follow your sentences, Because you are looking to making hot tensions in caucasia between iranians, aranis, azeris, gorjis, ... I'll contact you by Y! ID to finding a way to understanding each other, Although i have doubt about it, But i always had an affirmative mind, GOoD LuCk --Parthava (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in support of a new Indo-Aryan template; whether or not this stays is not my concern. If we collect all Indo-Aryan languages for which articles exist on wikipedia then it by itself would be quite huge. Maquahuitl^talk! 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template background colour

Does the template absolutely have to have Lawn green (#7CFC00) as it's background? It is such a bright colour that it hurts the eyes just to look at it. Could we not have something a little less bright like Khaki (#C3B091)? Green Giant (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Split template

This is a wonderfully detailed navigational template, but with its three collapsible layers of organisation and the need for readers to click through two separate "show" links before they're presented with a relevant list of languages, this is a usability nightmare. I'm proposing that this be split into three separate templates (possibly linking to one another) about each of the three subgroups. – Uanfala 11:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I imagine the split templates would look like: Template:Nuristani languages. – Uanfala 11:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And here are the other two resultant templates: Template:Indo-Aryan languages and Template:Iranian languages. – Uanfala 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I like the new templates. Whether we miss anything from not having the original template, I can't say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Well, I'm going to slowly proceed with the split. On second thoughts, I think the usability shouldn't be the main concern (I've realised the original template can be tweak to address the issues). The major problem is the scope. On the one hand, if it's expanded to include all relevant existing pages, then the link it will have are going to around two hundred. That's too much. But more importantly, I don't really see the modern Indo-Iranian languages as a coherent single topic. The Old Iranian and the Old Indo-Aryan languages can be seen to constitute a single field of scholarly inquiry. And so can for example Old Indo-Aryan and Modern Indo-Aryan. But Modern Indo-Aryan and Modern Iranian are two quite distinct topics. – Uanfala 22:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per rationale by Uanfala. Plus this case is similar to Balto-Slavic languages. We have two templates Template:Baltic languages and Template:Slavic languages. It's much better for navigation and helps readers to find related content easily. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I went further and split off Template:Old and Middle Indo-Aryan, leaving only the modern languages in Template:Indo-Aryan languages: the template was getting rather big and unwieldy and I don't like the idea of introducing multiple collapsible levels (as was done in the old template). Apart from this consideration, I don't have a strong opinion either way and I don't see it as problematic to split off the old languages: they are quite a distinct topic from the modern ones, and I see that there's a similar division of labour between different templates for example in the Semitic area. – Uanfala 16:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)