This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
As Ossetian is descended from Alanian, wich in turn is descended from Scythian, shouldn't Ossetic be directly behind after Scythian and Eastern Iranian in the language tree, rather than creating a separate branch calling it Early Forms?
Yes, that's another way to do it. However, we tend to have trees for reconstructions and other hypothetical forms, not so much for attested ancestors. Not that we have to do it that way, but I can't think of another article that does what you suggest. Old English, for example, is given as an ancestor of English, not as a node in the tree. Before I added the 'ancestor' field to the template, we didn't include attested forms in any box at all, not that I can think of. IMO it's probably a good idea to have consistency between articles, so readers know what to look for. Also, I'm not aware of any classification that states that Ossete belongs to the Alanian subbranch of the Scythian branch of Eastern Iranian, so it would be a bit of OR, though probably obvious enough that we could justify it if we decide to go that way. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
As most people currently working on Ossetic (Oleg Belyaev, Natalia Serdobolskaya, David Erschler) use the name form "Ossetic", this article should be renamed to "Ossetic". Haspelmt (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The criterion is what it is most commonly called by all English speakers, not what just among specialists. Ossetian seems to be the commonest descriptor in English. I myself prefer Ossetic, but that's not the state of the English language in 2014. There was a similar dispute at Tsakonian language some time ago. In Greek, it is called Tσακωνικά, and while I agree that calling it Tsakonic in English would be in one sense more "correct," that simply is not how it is known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_EnglishJpbrenna (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We currently transcribe this as IPA /æ/ (an open front vowel), but place this as a mid central vowel (IPA /ɜ/). Which is correct? I would guess that the former might be an error due to the Cyrillic orthography, but it also seems possible that the placement represents some kind of a non-surface-phonological analysis, given also the placement of ы /ə/ as a "close" vowel. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 08:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)