|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dardic languages article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Classification of Dardic Languages
Other than the studies of Morgenstierne, which took place almost a hundred years ago, when the study of lingusitics was considered an art rather than a science, very little research has been conducted into the Dardic languages. Ethnologue is clearly wrong in linking the Dardic langauges with the Northwestern Indo-Aryan group, so is SIL. If the Dardic languages are Indo-Aryan then they are a separate sub-group. Please refer to the page on Kashmiri to see the development of the Kashmiri languages (cited). As a speaker of several Dardic languages I would personally claim that most of them are unrelated langauges, about as different from one another as Romanian and Serbo-Croatian, but the only consensus their is about the Dardic languages is that they are a single group, so I will not refute that, but I am going to change the page format back to one which wass less biased in favor of the Northwestern Indo-Aryan classification, which is not accepted by most linguists who know anything about the Dardic langauges.-Fred Bolor
I am again going to put a question mark next to the where the Dardic languages are classified as both Indo-Aryan and the Northwestern sub-family of these langauges. More linguistic studies are required before this can be ascertained. That is the current consensus amongst linguists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred-Bolor (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed several sentences with spelling errors. Several sentences to not make sense or are not what is accepted by most linguists. As for the Ethnologue, I see Dardic as a branch of Indo-Aryan although they list several languages like Lahnda as a sister branch to Dardic which is not what is accepted by most linguists. Imperial78
Hi, please do tell which sentences do not make sense to you? Also when you state a fact such as so and so is/isnot accepted by most Linguists, do back up the claim with citations, or data and names. Dardic langauges are individual languages, however they show enough similarity in Lexicon and morphology so that some argue that these languages or some of them are a sub-set of Indo Aryan rather than an absolute independant. Sinceleivee it is not clear, the best solution is I believe isto mention the ambiguity regarding Indo-Aryan, and only mention Dardic as a clear subset of Indo Iranian. The articles definitely needs more expansion though. omerlivesOmerlives
- The article looks great now. Imperial78
- I've completely rewritten the article based on standard interpretation of Dardic as a genetic family, sub-group of Indo-Aryan. See Ethnologue.org, Oxford English Dictionary for support that this is standard. I also discuss alternatives - genetic family at top level of Indo-Iranian, areal grouping (at either level). There's absolutely no consensus on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This article unfortunately completely lacks references or sources. Especially the claim about the Dardic languages forming their separate subfamily of the Indo-Iranian languages seems doubtful, since the literature available to me (e.g. Masica: The Indo-Aryan Languages, Cambridge 1991) mentions them as a sub-group of Indo-Aryan. --BishkekRocks 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- See my complete rewrite 7 Oct 2007 - I start with the standard Indo-Aryan categorization, and discuss alternatives most objectively! : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Linguistic diversity claim
I'm just a passerby, but can I suggest that the claim said to have been made by Morgenstierne '...that Chitral is the area of the greatest linguistic diversity in the world' be deleted? It's not referenced, it's plainly wrong, and it's not relevant to anything in the article. Dougg (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Just represent the disagreements properly
If we simply pick one set of viewpoints in this area (which has contention among linguists), the article will keep lurching left and right. If there is a dispute, represent the dispute. The text needs general cleanups also. Some sense of history would be useful too (eg past contention that links Dardic and Paisachi, denial of that, evolution of a more nuanced view, continuing uncertainity, etc). --Hunnjazal (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
"Verb position in Dardic
Unlike most other Indo-Aryan (or Iranian) languages, several Dardic languages present "verb second" as the normal grammatical form. This is similar to many Germanic languages, such as English. Most Dardic languages, however, follow the usual Indo-Aryan SOV pattern. Language English (Germanic) This is a horse. We will go to Tokyo. Kashmiri (Dardic) Yi chhu akh gur. As gachhav Tokyo. Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) Esha eka ashva asti.3 Vayaṃ Tokyo gacchāmaḥ. Dari Persian In yak hasb ast. Maa ba Tokyo khaahem raft. Hindi-Urdu (Indo-Aryan) Ye ek ghora hai.4 Hum Tokyo jaenge. Punjabi (Indo-Aryan) Ae ikk kora ai. Assi Tokyo javange."
English is not a V2 language. The fact that the verb comes in the second position in the two sentences chosen is merely a coincidence. Can we replace the English examples with German or Dutch equivalents, and change "This is similar to many Germanic languages, such as English." to "This is similar to many Germanic languages, such as German/Dutch". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Though we have a redirect, a web search on Dardu doesn't lead to this page. Can we change the intro as given below?
The Dardic or Dardu languages are a sub-group...
The Indo-Aryan languages, 2007, page 905:
- 'Dardic' is a geographic cover term for those Northwest Indo-Aryan languages which [..] developed new characteristics different from the IA languages of the Indo-Gangetic plain. Although the Dardic and Nuristani (previously 'Kafiri') languages were formerly grouped together, Morgenstierne (1965) has established that the Dardic languages are Indo-Aryan, and that the Nuristani languages constitute a separate subgroup of Indo-Iranian.
The Indo-Aryan languages by Masida (1993) agrees that we've got it basically backwards here: Grierson, with scarce data, had Nuristani and Dardic as a single group and called that an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. Morgenstierne split that into Nuristani and Dardic and placed Dardic within NW IA (pp 461-2). Apparently there's some dispute about whether Dardic is strictly genetically IA (ie, descended from Old Indo-Aryan) or if it split off from an Indo-Dardic(-Nuristani) branch of Indo-Iranian (see, eg, On the position of Nuristani within Indo-Iranian by Blažek & Hegedűs for a nice little summary) and even whether Dardic is a valid node, but I think calling it Indo-Aryan and then going into detail in the 'Classification' section will be the best option.
The examples given for Epenthesis are examples of palatalization or some other such change. I'm not familiar with the Romanization scheme (what sounds correspond to the transcription, e.g. Pinyin for Mandarin) so I can't say for sure, but they are definitively not Epenthesis. Epenthesis is just one of many types of sound change connoting, in the simplest definition of the term, only the insertion of a new sound that was not there prior..2601:7:5280:336:CC27:76D7:B17E:93B3 (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Tom in Florida