Talk:Chadic languages

06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Without any content at the endpoints there seems little point in forcing us to drill four levels deep just to find out what the names of the languages are. Please consolidate this tree of articles into one. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.24.55 (talk • contribs) .

I must say I agree with this comment; this is a problem. — mark ✎ 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Needs more info

The Chadic pages are missing so much info on languages. I think I will create a List of Chadic languages soon.

azalea_pomp

The problem here is not so much a lack of lists (see also comments above), but rather lack of content! — mark ✎ 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonal?

Are they tonal languages? Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the Wikipedia article on the Hausa language, which notes that Hausa has significant tones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.62.157 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Source

can someone add sources to the article okOo7565 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetics and Linguistics

Too many of these language articles are wandering off the path into issues of genetics. If there is information on the genetics of a physical group (not a linguistic group), then that information needs to be in a separate article, not in a linguistics article as if there is some actual connection between the two. (Taivo (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. Genetics are in no way determinative of language evolution. The genetic data might provide additional context in some instances, but if a relevant connection isn't demonstrated, the material should be removed. There's a fair bit of ethno-nationalist essentialism at play in these articles on languages. O.M. Nash (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

I requested the page protection, but am obviously unhappy with the result. Peer reviewed scientific studies specifically discussing Chadic speakers have been removed from the article with no logical reason given. Trying for consensus is not the proper approach, as the voiced opinion that such studies are non-linguistic clutter is of no value, and simply a negative reaction with no foundation.

The title of this article is Chadic languages, and these studies, as well as Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA), mention them and Chadic speakers at length. As I read no guideline stating that only linguistic studies have a place here, the removal of these genetic studies is against general Wikipedia policy. DinDraithou (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed references have a place in Wikipedia on the correct pages. This is not the place for genetic studies that have nothing to do with linguistics. These references are not about language, but simply use language family names as convenient (albeit mistaken) labels for groups of people. Two professional historical linguists have removed these inappropriate links now. Put them in the correct place--an article dealing with anthropology. These Wikipedia articles are about languages, not genetics or even people ("speakers"). And since these references are not about the topic at hand (linguistics and a specific set of languages), it is not encumbent upon the linguists to justify their exclusion. It is encumbent upon you, DinDraithou, to justify why they should be here where they don't belong. And the presence of "languages" in their titles is not sufficient evidence since their topic is not languages, but genetics. (Taivo (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

Then this appears to be some breed of WP:OWN mixed in with some mistaken anti-racialism and a little affected snobbery. All I can think of is that you worry they might be ruining the focus of the article and possibly making controversial claims. You clearly haven't read them yet but probably lack (or worry you might lack) the knowledge to. If you had I think you might sound a little different. Try reading the one I added. The lead author is Fulvio Cruciani of Rome.

You claim to be a "professional" historical linguist, but for all I know your background is just another vacuous realm of generative grammar and you're bitter about choosing the wrong path, and may be trying to forget your lost decades here at Wikipedia pretending to be the linguist you should have been. What I mean is don't make claims like that.

Maybe you and your "colleague" are mostly innocent, but I reverted you because I believed you were feeling threatened somehow, perhaps by perceived racialism, and were vandalizing the article. Usually that's why whole sections disappear.

Again you should at least read Cruciani et al, the one I added. Until you do you can say nothing about where it belongs. And be sure it will return. When I have the time I will find the proper adminstrator(s) for this article, as the one who just came admits to no knowledge of the subject. Perhaps it was my error to make a request there. DinDraithou (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you place the references related to genetics and the information it contains at Chadic peoples. Languages are not genetically transmitted. And then I would suggest both of you stop using ad hominem arguments and abide by the principles of civilty, including "ignore all credentials".·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I will remind you of WP:NPA. You have presented no arguments as to why these genetics articles are relevant to a Wikipedia entry on languages. Do the articles cover the historical grammar of these languages? Do they cover the subgrouping of the Chadic languages based on shared grammatical patterns or regular sound correspondences? Do they reconstruct the Proto-Chadic vocabulary? No. They are not about the languages, but about the people. There is a fundamental difference between the two. If these references were in WP articles on ethnic groups, you wouldn't hear a peep of objection from linguists. But this is not an article about people, but about their languages. Show me the genetic component of a language. That's the point here. You have placed these references in an inappropriate place. Put them where they belong--in an article on the appropriate ethnic groups or genetics. They belong, quite rightly, in that article on the haplogroup. But show me in the grammar or vocabulary of any language where the DNA resides. (Taivo (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

About the Cruciani reference I would say that it does have a tangential relevance since it lends extra support to the theory built on linguistic arguments of a specific migration pattern causing the spread of early chadic languages. However it makes no sense to have it as a reference unless the article actually discusses proto-chadic migrations, ur-heimat hypotheses etc. At present it would be much more useful at "Chadic peoples".·Maunus·ƛ· 07:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Cruciani reference, Maunus is right--it does not stand alone as a reference for this article. If there were an article (or section) on the Chadic Urheimat, then it would be appropriate as a tangential reference in that matter. Indeed, there is already an article on the Afroasiatic Urheimat where population genetics has a small paragraph with a reference or two. The main thrust of the article is, appropriately, linguistics, but there is a bit written as a tangential matter about genetics. That is where your references are more appropriately directed, although the primary place they belong is in the articles on Chadic ethnic groups, since the references are about people and not languages. (Taivo (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC))

"Chadic"

According to this very site, not a single Chadic language is spoken in Chad. So:

1. Why are they called Chadic languages when they are spoken by large numbers of native speakers outside of Chad and neglible numbers in Chad? 2. (More important to Wikipedia) why does this article claim that they are spoken in Chad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.184.156 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so almost a month ago this question was asked, and clearly no one cares, so I'm deleting "Chad" from this article, although obviously one can't change the name of the language family, wikipedia can at least not contradict itself without any citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.240.129 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So it turns out Chadic languages are so named because of Lake Chad. There you have that. Anyway, there are no Chadic languages spoken in Chad, so Chad should not appear in the list of places Chadic languages are spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.240.129 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't use a WP article as a ref. That article needs to be fixed. Ethn. lists 54 Chadic languages in Chad. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Every single part of the Origin section of this page needs sources. How can this be acceptable? 70.190.164.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Now there is at least one citation. However, the section still inappropriately privileges genetic evidence, whose reliability in Urheimat discussions is highly questionable because it is ambiguous and difficult to interpret, language shifts complicating matters and muddling the picture, and the section is NPOV, not only giving undue weight to one specific Urheimat proposal, but ignoring all others (see Afroasiatic Urheimat). The view that the origins of Afroasiatic lie in (East) Africa is at least as mainstream, if not more, and Blench (2006) is a good source for a mainstream model on the origins of Chadic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)