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.
I notice that most of the Cyrillic words in this article use the Latin letter æ (instead of the Cyrillic Ӕ, ӕ). Do the Ossetians actually prefer to use the Latin letter instead of the Cyrillic one? —Stephen (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sure that is not correct – I have changed Latin æ to Cyrillic ӕ in all Cyrillic words. —Coroboy (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops! I checked out some pages on the Ossetic wikipedia – they use the Latin æ in Ossetic words, so I put them back in the article. —Coroboy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that some of the non-Slavic languages that use Cyrillic prefer to use certain Latin characters. Chuvash uses Latin ă, ĕ and ç; Chechen and other Caucasian languages use Latin I as the palochka. Their national keyboards usually make these seletions for them. I wasn’t sure about Ossetic, but I suspected that it was the case there as well. —Stephen (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Historically there is just one letter ae. And it is latin. So called cyrillic ae is part of unicode symbols. It was created for languages that use latin letters in cyrillic alphabet for comfortable collating. So ossetians use latin ae. Reason for Ossetians didn't accept cyrillic equivalent in computers flew from this comparison: ӕ-æ (cyr-lat). --Bouron (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
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)