Talk:Armenian language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Western Armenian is distinct from Eastern Armenian

And ISO 639 code has been issued for Western Armenian

http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2017_Summary.pdf

http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/PastComments/CR_Comments_2017-023.pdf

-- Evertype·✆ 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

IE Roots

I fixed the transcriptions of the Armenian and many IE proto forms etc. Some of the roots are questionable though. Azalea pomp 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the section Indo-European linguistic comparison, line 23, the English descendant of PIE *gʷʰerm- "warm" is said to be burn. This is incorrect - burn comes from *bhren- http://runeberg.org/svetym/0149.html. The word you are looking for is simply warm http://runeberg.org/svetym/1185.html.130.238.65.63 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Armenian has an independent branch

We really need a direct source for that? It is common throughout the vast literature on IE that at the moment Armenian is an independent branch of IE. You can check American Heritage Dictionary's IE section. You can check Porkorny. Even language sources like the Ethnologue or even Ruhlen's book have this commonly accepted fact. Azalea pomp (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this really something that requires a citation? This has been known since the 19th century when it was proved by Hübschmann and never disputed by anyone since then.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 05:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the question mark. I agree we don't need a citation for this. Azalea pomp (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Armenian language history

• Arak29 Armenian Origins (Arm.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.184.197 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Armenian language dates to the early period of Indo-European differentiation and dispersion some 5000 years ago, or perhaps as early as 7,800 years ago according to some recent research." Very bold statement when the oldest attestation of Armenian dates to the 5th century AD. And the "some recent research" you refer to is a newspaper article!! I suggest re-editing that section for it to be a bit more believable. And please use some reliabe sources (WP:RS)!--Xevorim (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See: [1]. The newspaper references that source from a peer reviewed academic journal, had you paid attention you would see that information contained in the citation.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article you refer to says the initial Indo-European divergence occured before 7,800 years. That's what you'd expect from a proto language. It does not say Armenian is 7,800 years old had you paid a little more attention to the article. And that does not change the fact that a newspaper article was used as a source. The newspaper article isn't peer reviewed on itself. Referencing doesn't work that way. You don't reference an article which references another article which reference a reliabe source. It just doesn't work that way.--Xevorim (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus, I have removed the bold statement and replaced it with something less POV and more realistic.--Xevorim (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that "the oldest attestation of Armenian dates to the 5th century AD." This was the century when the Armenian alphabet was developed. The Armenian languages was being spoken at least one millenium before within the first Armenian kingdoms. It is no surprise that a theory exists claiming that the divergence from Indo-European occurred about 3 millenia previously. Serouj (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved what you wrote downwards so it's easier for me to reply. No doubt that Armenian was spoken well before the alphabet was developed. However, there is no attestation of the Armenian language prior to the development of the alphabet. As for "how long ago was Armenian spoken" issue it is merely speculative. Speculations shouldn't be written as facts in an encyclopedia.--Xevorim (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "speculation" you mean "theory" then you are mistaken. You can include a theory of X in an encyclopedia without a problem. Just state, "according to research done by..." or "according to a theory by... the Armenian language branched from the Indo-European Y years ago." Serouj (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean a theory. It is mere speculation. No reliable linguistic book or article states that as a theory. By the way, do you realize how absurd it sounds that Armenian is 7800 years old. That would make it the oldest living language and that it remained for more than 6000 years without any evidence of existence till the 5th century AD. What would you think if you read such claims?! --Xevorim (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the claim isn't that Armenian is 7800 years old, but rather that the roots of the language branched from Indo-European 7800 years ago. Serouj (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

However, if you find a thoery on that issue from someone reliable (i.e. linguist (and not someone claiming to be a linguist)) you can go ahead and cite it as a theory.--Xevorim (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that any theory should be from a reliable source/linguist.Serouj (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The word for 'cow' in Latin should be 'bos', not 'bum'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kelly Jr (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Latin, it is the Umbrian word as the Latin bos is a loan from a sister Italic language. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarities betweeen Kurmanji and Armenian

I begin with the sentence: "I am Armenian." In Armenian: Es hay em. In Kurmanji: Es hay em. Could someone explain this? (In some places Kurds call Armeinans Hay, this is not the point here...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.149.107 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the first paragraph of the Kurmanji article and openly states being a dialect of the Kurdish language, but not much reference to being related to Armenian and it is correct though the Kurdish language is a member of the Indo-Iranian language family, but Armenian is categorized separately from Iranian.

Kurmanji: (Kurdish: Kurmancî called Bahdînî sometimes) is a dialect of Kurdish and it is spoken by almost all of the Kurds in Turkey and Syria as well as Kurds in Former Soviet countries and by Kurds in Lebanon. It also has a bit of speakers in Iraq and Iran. Whoever wants to support theories of the Kurds and Armenians are closely related, one has to examine the ancient history of the regions of Kurdistan settled by Hittites or Urartu peoples about 3,000 years ago, in relation to modern Armenia and Media in present-day Iran. The Kurds and Armenians fought each other in the Ottoman Empire, but it's widely reported in the Armenian genocide of 1915, Ottoman Turkish armies hired tens of thousands of Kurdish fighters to attack and kill Armenians in their homes or villages across the Eastern half of Turkey. Kurds and Armenians were adversaries, each group fought for power and autonomy and Kurds continue to do so in Turkish Kurdistan to this day, but unable to secede like their Iraqi Kurdish kin in nearby Iraq during the 1991 revolt against Saddam Hussein's brutal anti-Kurdish policies. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a combination of genetic relatedness, convergence and pure chance. After all, Armenian and Indo-Iranian (to which Kurmanji belongs) are related branches of Indo-European, even sharing some rather specific traits within the larger Indo-European family, and Armenian and Kurdish (as well as other Northwest Iranian languages) have been spoken side-by-side for centuries, probably millennia. They've always been in contact during that time, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people who identify as Kurds today and speak Kurmanji had Armenian ancestry (it would help to explain the ejectives in Kurmanji dialects), making Armenian in effect a substrate of Kurmanji, which could conceivably further the convergence of both languages.

Actually in Kurmanji, "I" is ez, not es (pronounced [jes] in Armenian, by the way). Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well put.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Armeno Aryan"

I agree with the recent reverts of Aryamahasattva's edits on the so-called Armeno-Aryan. The problem is not so much that the idea is a fringe one but that (1) the statement is ill-worded, (2) it does not clearly attribute the minority view, to the scholars who supposedly hold it, (3) it comes from interpreting a chart, not from an explicit argument in the text, and, (4) is inaccurate because the subgrouping is not iranian-armenian, but rather armenian-(indo-iranian). As far as one can guess, the chart might simply be based on the interpretation of Armenian as a satem language. And the subject of the cited book is NOT Indo-European dialectology. Finally, the authors are not exactly the leads in the field. And their reconstruction of *yotor for the PIE root "water" on page four is simply bizarre. If, Aryamahasattva, you want to add in a minority argument, it should be better worded, stated explicitly in the text you quote, and be attributed to notable authors who hold the theory.μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see Ary's addition is that this is the wrong article for it. This article is about Armenian, not about all the minute details of Armenian classification. We already mention the various options, but we don't need all the node names that are only used by a very small number of Indo-Europeanists and are not universally accepted. The level of detail that he/she wants to add is just too minute for this article. Perhaps it belongs in an article on Indo-European subgrouping, but not really here. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One troll, multiple accounts: [2]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox and official

The sources used are misunderstood. The EU Charter is a charter and that is all. It cannot and does not give official status to any language in any state or region. The countries concerned merely agree to abide by the terms of the charter which aims to preserve and promote those regional and/or minority languages, that could be extinct. The charter is all about promoting and enriching local communities; it has nothing to do with making any language official. Use of the ambiguous term 'recognised' in this setting is being used as a back door way to say the language has some sort of official standing. The languages are named in the charter that obliges the country concerned to do certain things, that is all. The county recognises the charter, not the named languages within the charter. If a county allows a person to be educated in a particular language, that is what it does, nothing more The abilty to educate in that way is official, not the language itself. Flags in infoboxes are distracting and are discouraged. Yerevantsi, you have added fresh detail, and have not reverted my deletion, so I am not reverting your revert. I suggest you discuss here before further changes. There may be isolated cases where official status does exist, but that should be discussed here first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I have just read your changes and additions, Yerivantsi, and now think it better not to revert but to persuade here. Ctprus, for example. One cit is the EU Charter, as mentioned above. I hope you now see it is misunderstood. The second is also the charter. It says: International Mother Tongue Day is a worldwide annual observance celebrated each year on 21 February with the aim to promote awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity as well as multilingualism., which paraphrases what I said. It also says:Dedicated to the two officially recognized minority languages of Cyprus, the event will focus on the teaching aspect of Western Armenian and Cypriot Arabic as mother tongues. and this is where people get confused. Officially recognised minority languages. By whom? - The charter, not the Cypriot state. The term 'minority language' also gives it away as referring only to the Charter, which deals with minority languages. States that do bestow official status on a minority language, by statute or within the constitution, do not use that term. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should check one-by-one about which EU country has integrated the commitment in the Charter into its national legislation (e.g. in Hungary, this is the case through the 1993 "Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities", where Armenian is explicitly mentioned). I trust that Yerevantsi did so for each country he listed, but for the sake of consensus, I'd advise to use primary legislative sources from the respective countries, where available. –Austronesier (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

For Ukraine and Iraq I have included direct references of their national laws (the constitution of Iraq and Ukraine's law on language policy). For the EU member states (Cyprus, Hungary, Iraq, Poland, Romania), I have added third party sources that *explicitly* state that those countries recognize Armenian as a minority language. Cyprus and Poland also have references from their government agencies sating that. I have removed the flags because, I agree, they don't add anything to the infobox. I'll try to look at these countries laws to add *primary sources*, if possible. ----Երևանցի ^talk 14:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Possibly useful source

I have found one source that may be useful for improving the article, specifically the Orthography section. It is a National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia book written by Ruben Hakobyan and published in 2017 by Antares Holding, titled Հայոց տառերը : ձեւագոյացման համեմատական քննություն (translated to English as Armenian Letters : Comparative study of morphogenesis). Since it is in Armenian, I cannot read it without vigorously using online translation methods, but that is not the problem. The problem is that it is not easily accessible. I was able to find it on Academia.edu, but I am wary about using the website for two reasons: 1. the website itself is unreliable, and 2. I cannot tell whether this work was uploaded with the author's permission, hence my refusal to give the link. Using Google, I did find matches to keywords found in the very same source such as the Armenian letters "օ" and "ֆ", "36 ... տառ" (36 letters), and "Մեսրոպ Մաշտոց" (Mesrop Mashtots). Additional relevant information is that its ISBN is 978-9939-0-2360-1. I am not sure how much further I can go on my own, as apart from the reasons against using Academia.edu, I realize that it is not kind to me for using word search on the page or selecting and copying its words for translation. However, any help would be appreciated. FreeMediaKid! 02:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Caucasus-ethnic en.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Syntax section missing

I think a section on syntax should be added (word order, etc) Exarchus (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenian/Iranian hypothesis

Lehmann says verbatum: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

[Note that the entire section, most of the article, below that quote is dedicated to providing that exact disproof, ending with the judgment that Armenian is its own separate branch between Aryan and the European dialects.μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)}]

Why is this being censored? Is it too politically sensitive to dare suggest Armenian is related to Iran or Iranians? In any case, politics has no bearing in linguistics. This is a perfectly legitimate theory espoused by many linguists, as Lehman himself states above, from his 2007 article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not being censored. You are insisting on the presentation of outdated and fringe theories as fact. You quote Bopp, for instance from the early 1800's. And you have been provided repeatedly with Lehmann's personal judgement, which is that Armenian lies between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, not that it is a subbranch of either. One more reversion of this edit will earn you a report for edit warring and perhaps a longer block than one week. Feel free to present the thoery accurately as a minority one, and as held by whomever holds it. Lehmann did not..μηδείς (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of this quote from Lehmann don't you understand? You cannot cite to Lehmann for one thing, then totally ignore him when he says something you don't like. Lehmann clearly states the Iranian hypothesis not only has not been disproven, but that it is in fact the "best established" and "prevailing" hypothesis to date. It's impossible to be more straight to the point than this. You are just denying and attempting to censor facts which are inconvenient for your argument.

"Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present." Nyisnotbad (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First, Nyisnotbad, you have not properly cited Lehmann. You just throw words out there and say that Lehmann wrote them. I don't believe you. Properly cite your source for this quote and then I will look it up myself and see how you've butchered Lehmann. Lehmann never wrote any such thing. Prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo and μηδείς, revert without discussion. That user is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned troll. See: [3]-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the above quote about Mueller by Lehmann precedes Lehmann's chapter-long analysis and disproof of Mueller's position.μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo - Lehmann has been properly cited. View the references cited in NYISNOTBAD's version, which clearly contains a link to an article by Lehmann located on an official site of the University of Texas. In this article, Lehmann says verbatim: "Müller's view, that Armenian is Iranian, has not been disproved, and must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Lehmann, does, however, end up with stating that *his* personal preference among the theories is that Armenian is a seperate branch. But Lehmann does so *only* with the caveat that reasonable minds may disagree on the matter, and admitting that the Iranian theory has "not been disproved" and "must be designated as the best established and the prevailing one at present."

Comment by blocked user 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link.  http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/read12.html

I guess an article on History of classification of Armenian language would be appropriate to discuss these things. One should avoid labelling "minority view" by "fringe theory". As I can see the claim in this article on who made armenian language an independent indo-european language family is wrong: as far I know/am informed it was Rask himself (decades before 1870's) who claimed independence of armenian from Iranian (he somewhat changed his opinion later and stated that armenian is an iranian language). These things deserve mentioning but maybe in a separate article. Xashaiar (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a place for "theories of origin" in the existing article. Simply adding the Iranian theory to the other two theories shouldn't be so difficult. After all, the Iranian theory is the more prominent of them all, as Lehmann himself admits, and as any fluent speakers of both languages can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.14.143 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you have actually read this introduction. At no point in his editorial introduction does Lehmann endorse the Indo-Iranian connection of Armenian. He endorses the advancement of linguistic methodology in the article, but not its conclusions. Indeed, this article is a refutation of a view from 1875. With this article, Hubschmann effectively refuted the Armenian-Iranian hypothesis in 1875!!!! It is not a current hypothesis in any way, shape, or form except as an Iranian political viewpoint, which has no place whatsoever in a linguistic article in an English encyclopedia. And, as a further indication of your failure to understand this issue, you continue to call current proposals the Armenian-Iranian hypotheses when they are no such thing. It is Armenian-Indo-Iranian-Greek-Phyrgian. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User Nyisnotbad has been blocked and is using IP 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. These comments should be deleted. I am leaving the above comments in place since another editor has responded to them. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)