Talk:Finnic languages (disambiguation)

Definition

Please be careful when referrig to Encyclopedia Britanica and other supposedly reliable sources. I suggest to teat the whole tree Uralic languages consistent in wikipedia. Also, it would be insightful to have the article History of lingustic research in Uralic languages, for chronology of changing opinions as to the classification. `'Míkka >t 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When striving for "consistency" across articles, the solution is not to delete well-referenced (and from my own readings, accurate) article contents, the answer is to go to the other articles and insure they are also properly referenced and brought up to par. Deletion of well-sourced content for an arbitrary reason ("inconsistency" can mean just about anything) is not constructive. It is already established as part of guidelines that wikis are not reputable sources; enforcing "consistency" inappropriately elevates other WP content to "reputable source" status. PētersV (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not striving for consistency then the whole wikipedia will be a mess. `'Míkka >t 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Míkka feel free to help out and update the Uralic languages and Finno-Ugric languages to insure consistency on WP. It has to be done anyway so any help is appreciated.--Termer (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 5 different scholarly interpretations of the groupings of Finnic languages to the article. And I had to revert the removal of sourced facts that were replaced with unsourced claims by Míkka. The best part of it was, saying that Finnic languages got their name from Finns would be like claiming Germanic languages and Germanic people got their name from Germans. I think that should speak for itself. --Termer (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> Whatever. The article quoting a bunch of classifications 30-40 years ago, as if time stopped. Shall we add Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 as a "well-sourced content" as well? I know a couple of books from 1800s who list Sirenik among Finnic as well. Like I said above, the best approach is to have the "History of research" article. Otherwise it is a mess. As you wish. At least say me thank you that I deleted the redirect when Finnic languages pointed to Baltic-Finnic languages, so that you noticed that this article is necessary. Bye. `'Míkka >t 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am baffled: If the term "Finnic languages" is not derived from the name of the people, then what is the origin of the term? `'Míkka >t 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnic languages is definitely derived from the name of the people or vice versa just that not from Finns but from Finnic peoples. Exactly like Germanic languages is not derived from Germans but from Germanic peoples. Glad to be helpful.--Termer (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "Finnic peoples" was derived from what? `'Míkka >t 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's knowingly derived originally from Tacitus Fenni. But why not to get a book on the subject in case there is interest? Books about Finnic People and about Finnic Languages --Termer (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the word "Fennic" (not Finnic) was derived from "Fenni". I have an impression that it is of low usage now. `'Míkka >t 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what are you talking about since Fennic and Finnic are in essence the same thing, even the link you provided Fennic redirects to Finnic. It is simple, there is Finno-Ugrig language group that has 2 subgroups in it, Finnic and Ugric. What languages Finnic group contains and how different scholars group the languages in the group itself is the choice of these scholars. The Ugric languages is another subgroup of Finno-Ugric languages that doesn't contain Finnic languages. In case this is about what I think it is , an attempt to avoid naming lets say the Sami etc. as Finnic languages, someone should at first rename the Finno-Ugric language group into Finno-Ugric-Sami-Permic for example. That's not the case, there are Finnic group and Ugric group within Finno-Ugric languages. The bottom line, Baltic Finnic languages are not the same as Finnic languages as originally claimed on WP but just a subgroup of it. And I don't think I'd have anything else really to add to this discussion. --Termer (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Other than in case anybody is familiar with yet another concept how the Finnic languages are grouped together, please feel free to add the example to the 5 in the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing my question. I am not disputing any classification. I don't say that "Fennic" and "Finnic" are the same thing. I say that they are different words, of common root, but slightly different derivation. `'Míkka >t 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you don't say "Fennic" and "Finnic" are the same thing. I did say so, and so does the redirect in WP and so does the WordNet, a lexical database for the English language at the Princeton Unversity :Fennic. The only difference: Fennic is an older and more archaic form of the word than Finnic. And I'm sorry but I'm still missing what exactly are you after? --Termer 03:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]