Jump to content

Talk:Armenian language

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2404:8000:1027:2c72:285e:fe91:a2cf:e723 (talk) at 08:08, 8 August 2023 (→Indo european language?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Armenian/Iranian hypothesis

Lehmann says verbatum: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

[Note that the entire section, most of the article, below that quote is dedicated to providing that exact disproof, ending with the judgment that Armenian is its own separate branch between Aryan and the European dialects.μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)}][reply]

Why is this being censored? Is it too politically sensitive to dare suggest Armenian is related to Iran or Iranians? In any case, politics has no bearing in linguistics. This is a perfectly legitimate theory espoused by many linguists, as Lehman himself states above, from his 2007 article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being censored. You are insisting on the presentation of outdated and fringe theories as fact. You quote Bopp, for instance from the early 1800's. And you have been provided repeatedly with Lehmann's personal judgement, which is that Armenian lies between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, not that it is a subbranch of either. One more reversion of this edit will earn you a report for edit warring and perhaps a longer block than one week. Feel free to present the thoery accurately as a minority one, and as held by whomever holds it. Lehmann did not..μηδείς (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this quote from Lehmann don't you understand? You cannot cite to Lehmann for one thing, then totally ignore him when he says something you don't like. Lehmann clearly states the Iranian hypothesis not only has not been disproven, but that it is in fact the "best established" and "prevailing" hypothesis to date. It's impossible to be more straight to the point than this. You are just denying and attempting to censor facts which are inconvenient for your argument.

"Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present." Nyisnotbad (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, Nyisnotbad, you have not properly cited Lehmann. You just throw words out there and say that Lehmann wrote them. I don't believe you. Properly cite your source for this quote and then I will look it up myself and see how you've butchered Lehmann. Lehmann never wrote any such thing. Prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo and μηδείς, revert without discussion. That user is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned troll. See: [1]-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above quote about Mueller by Lehmann precedes Lehmann's chapter-long analysis and disproof of Mueller's position.μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo - Lehmann has been properly cited. View the references cited in NYISNOTBAD's version, which clearly contains a link to an article by Lehmann located on an official site of the University of Texas. In this article, Lehmann says verbatim: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Lehmann, does, however, end up with stating that *his* personal preference among the theories is that Armenian is a seperate branch. But Lehmann does so *only* with the caveat that reasonable minds may disagree on the matter, and admitting that the Iranian theory has "not been disproved" and "must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Comment by blocked user 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Here is the link.  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/read12.html
I guess an article on History of classification of Armenian language would be appropriate to discuss these things. One should avoid labelling "minority view" by "fringe theory". As I can see the claim in this article on who made armenian language an independent indo-european language family is wrong: as far I know/am informed it was Rask himself (decades before 1870's) who claimed independence of armenian from Iranian (he somewhat changed his opinion later and stated that armenian is an iranian language). These things deserve mentioning but maybe in a separate article. Xashaiar (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a place for "theories of origin" in the existing article. Simply adding the Iranian theory to the other two theories shouldn't be so difficult. After all, the Iranian theory is the more prominent of them all, as Lehmann himself admits, and as any fluent speakers of both languages can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have actually read this introduction. At no point in his editorial introduction does Lehmann endorse the Indo-Iranian connection of Armenian. He endorses the advancement of linguistic methodology in the article, but not its conclusions. Indeed, this article is a refutation of a view from 1875. With this article, Hubschmann effectively refuted the Armenian-Iranian hypothesis in 1875!!!! It is not a current hypothesis in any way, shape, or form except as an Iranian political viewpoint, which has no place whatsoever in a linguistic article in an English encyclopedia. And, as a further indication of your failure to understand this issue, you continue to call current proposals the Armenian-Iranian hypotheses when they are no such thing. It is Armenian-Indo-Iranian-Greek-Phyrgian. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Nyisnotbad has been blocked and is using IP 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. These comments should be deleted. I am leaving the above comments in place since another editor has responded to them. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolian "connection"

Austin's hypothesis of an Anatolian connection is extremely problematic. According to the article it is based on purely negative evidence, which proves nothing. Mandarin lacks long vowels and the feminine gender. Should it be grouped with Armenian and Anatolian? I wonder if the source provides anything better. It seems like mere outdated speculation that doesn't take into account the importance of synapomorphy for classification. If not, I am in favor of deleting the reference entirely, or moving it to a new section for fringe theories.μηδείς (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be expanded tenfold. Ties between Armenian and Luwian are very interesting and are presented in virtually every single IE studies book. Hardly a fringe theory. Just requires better sources. Another major thing that's missing from this article is a brief analysis of the Hurro-Urartian substrate in Armenian.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have such sources to recommend? Sounds very interesting if there are common innovations. I agree about the need for mention of the possibility of substratum influence. Unfortunately the local university has limited materials on historical linguistics, and I am very busy - but I intend to get to it.μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

language isolate, or not? Articles must be co-ordinated

Currently, the article on ARMENIANS describes Armenian as a language isolate. There is no middle ground here, either it is, or it is not. Whatever the linguistic subject matter experts conclude the Reliable Sources in the majority state, either this language article, or the article on Armenians has to be adjusted. Please prioritize this, as currently you have very contradictory information in the Wiki. (adjusted for my mistake)HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian is not a language isolate and never has been. Linguists have placed it in the Indo-European language family since the 19th century. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Taivo (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I sort of smelled some nationalism going on there about this.  :-) This was added in the March 2012 timeframe by user Lycurgus. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "an Indo-European language isolate", Eupator. "Language isolate" is a technical term for a language with no known relatives. That is not true of Armenian. You cite Greek and Albanian as other "Indo-European language isolates", but you have obviously not bothered to read either of those articles, and have not read this article either. None of those articles call these languages "isolates". Linguistic science simply does not use that term for these three languages or any other language that has been demonstrably placed in a language family. --Taivo (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I ran across this in another article and corrected it. I wonder how many articles have the same nonsense about it, or Greek and Albanian, sprinkled in them? Wikipedia - the never-ending job of policing!HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three are "family-level isolates", as Wurm would put it. An "isolate" just means no relatives at a certain level – presumably Basque has relatives too if we were able to go back far enough. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility of Eastern and Western Armenian

Eastern and Western Armenian are not mutually intelligible, according to experts from Wikimedia Armenia whom I met in Berlin this past weekend. We discussed vocabulary and paradigms. There will likely be a Western Armenian Wikipedia in due course. However, I'll edit the page with external citations. -- Evertype·✆ 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation from Daniels and Bright is not relevant. That book is about writing systems. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is from Avedis Sanjian, a Professor of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures at UCLA, not Daniels and Bright. I've added several other reputable sources. Did you really cite "wordreference" "reddit" and "100years100facts" as reliable sources on Wikipedia? --Երևանցի talk 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To hell with you. Yerevantsi. They are mutually unintelligible enough that there are live, ongoing requests for a Western Armenian Wikipedia from both Eastern and Western Wikipedians. I, as a linguist, have been convinced by the request by the user community, and we'll go ahead and proceed with it. My Eastern Armenian colleagues indicated clearly that simple nominal and verbal paradigms differed considerably, in addition to the phonology. So go right ahead, Yerevantsi, and summarily delete citations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others. (The Reddit one was poor, and I was about to delete it myself.) You're wrong (and you haven't even argued that you yourself find the two languages mutually intelligible in speech and or in writing). But I'm not going to fight with you, because there are real users out there whose linguistic needs can be served without edit warring with you. The fact is that the mutual intelligibility is DISPUTED. If you care about Armenian, why don't YOU do the work to investigate for yourself. Oh, and Daniels and Bright is a book about writing systems, not about grammar, and if Sanjian can understand both that's probably because he's been specially triained to do so, just like the citations which you suppressed said. -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try to stay civil. It's not my job to do original research here. Cite published reliable sources or don't edit at all. Do not cite online forums. --Երևանցի talk 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forums and reddit posts are not reliable sources, neither are your tall tales of conversations with supposed experts at Wikimedia Foundation events. You adding such sources to say that there are not sources (which is not the case) is a clear-cut example of WP:DISRUPTION and WP:POINT. Also, please be WP:CIVIL. I suggest you refrain from going down this path. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is utter fringe nonsense. Revert on sight.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely mutually intelligible under the meaning of that term, however more content could be added examining the degree of that mutually intelligibility and whether they are increasingly diverging. I suggest that is the route Evertype should take regarding this issue, if they can find appropriate sources. BTW, I think the issue of a Western Armenian Wikipedia is more connected to the preservation and representation of a language and culture under risk than a real difficulty of Western Armenian speakers understanding content on the Armenian-language Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are mutually intelligible, but not for all speakers; especially, when considering many words used in Eastern Armenian are not Armenian - i.e. կազար or khaladinik (Russian for refrigerator). This problem is compounded when the language is written - there are many words which are spelled differently.Clean-up Time (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax section missing

I think a section on syntax should be added (word order, etc) Exarchus (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not isolated?

Why armenian language is also a branch of independent of indo european kanguage along with albanian? If isolated, it would be counted as the one of most unique language ever seen. I think in my opinion it would be imoossible to have armenian place at just below the indo european kanguage branch. Why armenian language is not claasified as kartvelian language despite being close neighbor? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:4114:B8DC:1B6C:6EF (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey + Lausanne treaty

I couldn't find anything like this in Lausanne, could users show me please? There are no special provisions about Armenians in the Lausanne Treaty

As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

Doesn't specify any language, sounds vague. Hence education language isn't minority language. If this was the case, this makes Kurdish a minority language as well, which is not. Beshogur (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo european language?

Why armenian language is vested within the language family called indo european language despite being just 1 branch, make it a language isolate? 182.2.137.92 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you questioning whether Armenian is an Indo-European language or are you questioning whether it is an isolate? DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed your edit which I reverted. It is a member of the Indo-European language family. That family is divided into a number of branches each with a number of languages eg the Balto-Slavic branch splits into Russian, Polish, Bulgarian etc. However, the only language on the Armenian branch is the Armenian language. It is an isolate because it is the only language on that branch of the Indo-European language family. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to me there is no reason to classify armenian as a single branch of indo european languages family? 2404:8000:1027:2C72:285E:FE91:A2CF:E723 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_language&oldid=1169305294"