Talk:List of Indo-Aryan languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is the place where the exhaustive list of languages should go, not on the separate page Indo-Aryan languages. --Cbdorsett 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

With the one source link - Indo-Aryan language tree - broken, whatever are we to do?! Tuncrypt (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

the correct link is dab (𒁳) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Kwamikagami has re-instated the "Western zone" (Rajasthani, Gujarati, Bhil). What is our source for this? SIL doesn't have it. Also, SIL classifies Eastern Punjabi as Central zone. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we had abandoned SIL for the Central zone, and you gave German wikipedia as a reference for doing so, and they used Kausen, I followed Kausen for the entire family. No sense mixing the two, especially when SIL is so unreliable. kwami (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Panjabi is another area where people have problems with SIL: Panjabi blends into Lahnda and Siraiki, but SIL puts them in different branches of Indic. That's equivalent to your objection of SIL's placement of East and West Hindi in different branches. kwami (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. I don't think this is all SIL's fault this time. It probably reflects a true continuum, which means that all approaches to grouping will be arbitrary to some extent. Regarding Kausen, I am sorry, but while this is good as an informative external link, we shouldn't rely on it: it's just a word document that we found on the internet. For Indo-Aryan, Kausen gives no reference whatsoever. And while his list looks generally alright, it isn't above reproach (he manages to consistently spell Magadhi as Maghadi). dab (𒁳) 09:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a better source handy? SIL, besides being unreliable, is easily accessible as a link, so I don't see any point in blindly copying it onto Wikipedia. Granted, there isn't much debate about Indic, compared to many other families, but if we're going to abandon SIL where we think it's problematic, I'd feel better if we didn't follow them at all. kwami (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Another reason for not following Ethnologue is that it messes up the Hindi articles, since we keep trying to correlate either E + W Hindi or the Hindi languages with Central Indic, but neither match the Ethnologue defintion, while the former does match Kausen. kwami (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with SIL either. It's just that at present, it's our only quotable source. I am sure there are much better sources. It's just that somebody will have to sit down and compile them. This is not a problem, it's just an article with a "todo" list to be looked at on some rainy afternoon some time. dab (𒁳) 13:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)