Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Archive 15

History of English should be renamed History of the English language

I had initially proposed to rename Category:History of the English language to Category:History of English, which was opposed and withdrawn (link). Then, I decided to do the reverse (link). Unfortunately, User:36.77.92.121 added more articles into the RM, which hampered the entire process by oppositions. I only wanna rename History of English to History of the English language, not the other language articles titled as "History of foo". Pinging those who are involved in this problem.​​​​​ --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I also wanna punish 36.77.92.121 for nominating more article titles into the RM that I am neutral with. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

IP reported to ANI. Nardog (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a proposal for a requested move, please format it properly (see WP:RM#CM). If it's just a discussion and not a proposal, then I'd say you've given no reason why changing the name would be an improvement, or how it would better satisfy the article titles policy. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Both titles are consistent with a typical articlonomy (e.g. History of English is consistent with History of Danish et al. History of the English language is consistent with History of the Spanish language et al.). However, the latter is more consistent with Category:History of the English language. I am drafting a naming convention proposal to mitigate this problem (link). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge "Language preservation" into "Endangered language"

hey everyone! I've proposed merging Language preservation into Endangered language on the latter's talk page. I figured I'd post this here as the talk page doesn't appear to see much traffic. Thoughts?

CampWood (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed maintenance category renames

I have proposed some (59) maintenance categories for renaming.

The schema is Category:Articles with text from the Afro-Asiatic languages collective to Category:Articles with text from Afro-Asiatic languages. The reason is that these groups of languages are not called collectives, they do not need an explicit group qualifier, and if they did it would not be "collective".

It has been suggested that the proposal would be of interest to members of this project.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC).

When did the IE-speakers of the later Paleo-Balkan languages appear in the Balkans?

There's a discussion we're having at Talk:Molossians#Georgiev in which members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To Protect Writing Systems

We are fighting against vandalising on wiki, so we should fight against vandalising of writing systems in reality as well: https://forum.unilang.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57993

This is common russian practice BTW:

• https://lenta.ru/articles/2004/11/16/language/ (in Russian) -- "criminalized Latin", "outlawed any switch to Latin"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Ukaz#Yaryzhka
• and so on, and so on, and so on...195.114.146.60 (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion

FYI - there is a move discussion Talk:Te'un language#Requested move 2 September 2020 about an apostrophe (yes, kwami, an apostrophe!) in the title. –Austronesier (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Pig Latin, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Discussion in WP Linguistics: What is WP:SYNTH when using multiple sources about language classification?

FYI - this might be interesting for members of this project not watching WP Linguistics:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#What is WP:SYNTH when using multiple sources about language classification?

–Austronesier (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested article: Language Question (Italy)

I recently wrote an article about the Language Question (Malta), and while I was researching it I came across a somewhat similar linguistic debate which took place in Italy. This is covered by a fairly decent article on the Italian Wikipedia (it:Questione della lingua) but there's no article about it on the English Wikipedia. Would someone from this project be interested in translating the article from Italian and perhaps improving upon it?

I am also making this request at WikiProject Italy and WikiProject Linguistics. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Language § Inconsistent examples in talk page templates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Language § Inconsistent examples in talk page templates. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sharp contradiction between Middle Tamil and Old Malayalam articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Middle Tamil#Sharp contradiction between Middle Tamil and Old Malayalam articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ainu language

Continuing debate at Ainu language about whether it should be treated as a small family or a single language. We're going in circles, with bad/unsourced info repeatedly restored (such as treating Amur Ainu as a distinct language, as well as a Tohoku Ainu which AFAICT is OR). We could use input from more people here. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reorganisation of WikiProject Constructed languages

WikiProject Constructed languages is semi-active, with Esperanto task force being inactive. We have to reorganise the project and convert it to a task force. We can reorganise the Esperanto task force as well. What do you think? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

We also have to reorganise WikiProject Endangered languages and convert it into a task force. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of merging WikiProjects when they're (semi-)inactive. Having multiple venues makes discussions harder to follow and inhibits coordination. By merging WikiProject Conlangs and WikiProject Endangered Langs here, we consolidate discussion traffic and reinvigorate this more general project. I'd say go for it, and get in touch if you need help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Those articles have eluded us

I was fiddling with the Petscan earlier today, and I found out there are quite a few language articles that are not tagged with this project's banner. It's hard to know exactly how many there are, but if you go for a concrete question, like 'How many articles have a language infobox but are not tagged for this project?', you'll get a concrete answer, 931. That's a lot. Over 7% of all the articles already tagged over the years.

The list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Articles to tag. Anybody interested in lending a hand with this massive task? – Uanfala (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, looks like fun! –Austronesier (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, my assumption has been that the fact of not being project-tagged may sometimes be an indication that the articles need attention. That's why I thought it might be a good idea to review them manually. Is that the case? If they invariably turn out to be alright, and it's just the banner that needs adding, then we could probably request that as a bot task. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should continue to do it manually, so we can catch "gems" such as Dagestani Russian, which I think is close to being AfD-able. –Austronesier (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Just removed the last ones from the list. Uanfala, do you want to run the Petscan report again to see if it's all fixed now? Carter (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, Tcr25! The Petscan report is at [1], I've just run iy and and there was only one article with unusual (rather than missing) tags, which I've now corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. Mission accomplished! Carter (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait – the petscan was misbehaving when I ran the full search, so the above link only shows some of the results. The full picture can been seen by running it for each template individually: Infobox language family, Infobox proto-language, and Infobox language. Still, I don't see anything that needs doing now – there are three articles in the last set, but they only have a bit of language content embedded within a bigger article, so I'm not sure whether we would like to track them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead an replaced the language info box on one of those three (there's a full article on the language, so I added a main link to that). The other two seemed like adding the WP Languages template made sense. Carter (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS

FYI

For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Help needed for Amharic/Tigrinya welcome-template translation

If you can write Amharic or Tigrinya, please see WT:WikiProject Ethiopia#Help needed for Amharic/Tigrinya welcome-template translation. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Template talk:Interlanguage link

There is a discussion at Template talk:Interlanguage link#Suppressing Crewbot conversion that may be of interest to this WikiProject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Several articles such as French language and Spanish language has dozens of categories for every single country that has a population of speakers. Categories are supposed to be defining, and Spanish is not defined by being spoken in the United States.★Trekker (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Szekely language

Need help in developing, some users keep delete the contents of it. Magysze (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome sign in Latin and in Old Szekely script for the town of Vonyarcvashegy (𐲮𐳛𐳚𐳀𐳢𐳄𐳮𐳀𐳤𐳏𐳉𐳎), Hungary

The language exist for sure, it has its own script. Magysze (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

According to a widely accepted modern hypothesis, the Székelys were originally a Turkic people who joined the Magyars in the Pontic steppes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User keep delete it because it is a hoax. The Székelys speak a Hungarian dialect. Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Dialect vs. language can be a slippery slope often more about politics and identity than linguistics. That said, the created article looked like it borrowed heavily from the Old Hungarian script article and the Székelys article doesn't include anything about language or dialect. I'd suggest that Székelys include a section on what Székelys speak and highlight how it is related to/differs from standard Hungarian. Carter (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no scholarly debate on this issue: Székelys speak a Hungarian dialect. The editor who claims the existence of a "Szekely language" has unable to refer to a single reliable source to verify his statement. Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing either way, just noting that the Székelys article is probably the best place to start outlining what's being spoken. Carter (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't agree with Borsoka talk you get blocked. Instead of Borsoka talk) to develop the article he warns you with blocking. If there exist people of Szekely why not in democratic way it's recognized also their language? They have their own script right? It's a language not dialect but someone has a POV here. Borsoka talk)...Magysze (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Magysze, I understand why you're upset, but any article here needs to be supported by reliable sources. I've been googling around and can find little describing Székely speech and outlining where it falls among Uralic languages, it's relationship to Hungarian, etc. (at least not in English). The use of Old Hungarian script among the Székely community is attested, but a different script doesn't always mean a sperate language; Serbian language, for example, has uses of both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. Again, I'd suggest not making dialect vs. language the main issue; instead focus on describing the speech and writing, using WP:RS, outline its use, history, linguistic classification, and what distinguishes it from related languages/dialects. That could be done as part of the Székelys article first and if it turns out there's enough well sourced material out there, then it could be appropriate to expand it to a full article.Carter (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Using their own script is irrelevant. Quite a few languages are or have been written in more than one script, whether by the same people or by separate groups of speakers. Largoplazo (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: just a remark: Székely script is widely used in Hungary as well, as it is demonstrated by the above picture. It was taken at the Hungarian village of Vonyarcvashegy. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not the article to explain better the history, with pro and cons. The difference between hungarian and szekely have to be described. Magysze (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see there is POV from some Hungarian users to mock the Szekely language and to block any edits on it. Save the Szekely language article from this army POV pushers. Magysze (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Magysze has stated on two Talk pages that he is Hungarian ([2] and [3]). These were obviously false statements and he is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I am proud Szekely, something that you don't recognize of course. Magysze (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And you twice stated you were Hungarian. You should explain your contradictory statements, or one can assume you are a PoV pushing liar. And we both know that you are actually Romanian and you cannot speak Hungarian, you cannot use "Szekely" sript, and you have nothing common with "Szekelys". Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a proud Szekely, which you don't recognize and respect me. Magysze (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka, fanning the flames is not the way to build an encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: how would you describe an editor who twice stated falsely that he was a Hungarian in order to push chauvinistic Romanian PoVs? Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you saying? It's Szekely people here about. Has nothing to do with Romanians. It has to do with HUngarians and Szekely only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Austronesier's point was that regardless of what justification you might give for your ad hominem attacks, they are still ad hominem attacks and not helpful to resolving the debate on its merits. (That goes for everyone who's involved in this "you're this, I'm that" side show.) Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I hope you do not say that making false statements about our ethnicity is a respected way of discussing issues. :) Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the Romanians recognize Szekely ethnicity which Hungarians don't, so who is chauvinist? This is to reply to Borsoka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The Hungarian editor Borsoka refuses to recognize the Szekler identity. Which of course its not democratic in European Union. Magysze (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you refer to a reliable source describing the "Szekely language"? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose that anyone who claims the existence of a distinct Székely language

• look at all the sources given at Székelys#Origins and Origin of the Székelys#Social group: Hungarian border guards;
• ascertain the extent to which they support the assertions in those articles that there is no distinct Székely language; and
• if they do support those assertions, either accept that for our purposes it isn't a distinct language or find sources that say the opposite and be prepared to explain why they are more reliable than the sources we already have.

Largoplazo (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. I hope that Magysze (who have just identified himself as a half Hungarian, half "Szekely" [5]) can also accept it. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you stop with the irrelevant ethnic taunting? Largoplazo (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Having said that: Whether or not it's a distinct language is apart from the question of whether there can or should be a separate article on what the Székely people speak if (a) it's distinct from mainstream Hungarian in significant ways explained in reliable sources and (b) it meets the notability criteria for a separate article. We have plenty of articles about language variants. Largoplazo (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that the Székely dialect meets the notability criteria for a separate article. Borsoka (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• That half the people involved in this dispute are not from the region is quite unhelpful. No Székely language exists. There is nothing to discuss, change or negotiate, and there is no new article to create. No Székelys claim a different ethnicity. In the Romanian census of 2011, out of the approximately 600,000 Székelys that exist, only 532 did not declare themselves as Hungarian (look this up at the Székelys article). I would in fact say that Székelys are the most nationalistic out of all the Hungarian subgroups. And it's obvious anyway that this guy isn't Székely or Hungarian. This discussion is completely pointless and should be stopped and this troll should be ignored and subsequently blocked. Super Ψ Dro 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I was not brave enough to say this. Yes, this impostor makes fun of us. I maintain that a separate article should be dedicated to the Székely dialect (and all other Hungarian dialects). Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised it doesn't exist yet. Yes, it should exist. By the way, is the Csango dialect really referred to as "Moldavian"? This is what it says in the Hungarian dialects article. Super Ψ Dro 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the scientific term, but I would say Csángó in Hungarian. Perhaps for English readers the term "Moldavian" is more familiar (or less alien). Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to propose replacing all mentions of "Moldavian" to "Csango" but I made a quick search and the term is apparently used as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the mentions I'm seeing are to either Moldovan language or Moldavian dialect of Romanian (even the Moldovan disambig page doesn't mention a Hungarian dialect); I don't see many unambiguous uses of Moldavian when talking about Csángó. Carter (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean all the mentions of Moldavian in the whole of Wikipedia, just those related to the Csango dialect (and it's a valid name for it too so it doesn't matter). Super Ψ Dro 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't looking specifically at Wikipedia, but at Google Scholar and general Google searches as Borsoka speculated that "Moldavian" might be more familiar than "Csángó" to English speakers. It wasn't to me and I don't see that looking around elsewhere. That said, if it is a valid name (whether the dominant one or not), then it belongs on the disambig page too. Carter (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The adjective can refer to anything from or related to Moldavia. Therefore, it can refer to the Moldavian dialect(s) of both Romanian and Hungarian. However, I do not know what is the proper English term when speaking about the Csángós' tongue. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. What I'm saying is that a look at what's out there in Google Scholar seems to be heavily weighted towards "Csángós dialect." Articles discussing "Moldavian dialect" more frequently point to the Moldavian dialect of Romanian. Carter (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. Borsoka (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should get too hung up the dialect/language issue. Separating (Moldovan language or Macedonian language come to mind) or joining (Langues d'oïl and Provençal dialect, German dialects) elements in the language continuum into discrete languages is more of a political issue, than a linguistic issue. In this case dialect is probably more appropriate than language, but this affects the proposed article very little.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

At begining Szekely language

https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/transylvanianszekely.htm Szekely language is a variant of Avar (Turkish) language. Why nobody speak about it in the article? Only in 11th century Hungarian language was imposed to Szekely by Magyarisation. Not democracy or freedom to Hungarian tribes at the time. It's non sense the phrases with Moldavian / Moldovan from above. Magysze (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for POV-pushers of Hungarian editors:

^ a b c d e Piotr Eberhardt. "Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe". M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and London, England, 2003. http://books.google.com/books?id=jLfX1q3kJzgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ethnic+Groups+and+Population+Changes+in+Twentieth-century+Central-Eastern#PRA1-PA334,M1. ^ a b "Szekler people". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579333/Szekler. ^ a b c "Székely". Columbia Encyclopedia. 2008. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Szekely.html. Retrieved 2009-01-25.

Now read them and accept them. Magysze (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, according to a widespread theory, the Székelys descended from Turkic tribes and their ancestors joined the confederation of the Magyar tribes in the Pontic steppes. However, it is only a theory and it is objected primarily by linguists: the Székely dialect of Hungarian does not contain more words of Turkic origin than other Hungarian dialects. Nevertheless, the Székelys' Turkic origin is a possibility. Yes, according to an other theory, which proposes that the Avars spoke Hungarian, the Székelys are descendants of the allegedly Hungarian-speaking Avars, so they settled in the Carpathian Basin before the Magyars. (The theories are presented in the well sourced article about the Origin of the Székelys). Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It should appear in the new article Szekely language all of this. The controversy, the history etc. All. Magysze (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not duplicate articles: these theories are discussed in the article about the Székelys' origin. The term Székely language is unattested in reliable sources. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because all my attempts to explain why your edits are highly problematc faild. Perhaps editors who are more patient than me will be more successful. Please avoid expanding this debate over new and new articles. Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Who are the Szeklers, and what language they spoke?

Content collapsed, per WP:NOTFORUM

Invazia "copiilor pamantului" Dislocati din Asia Centrala, stabilindu-se permanent în cautare de "noi patrii" (Simon de Keza), rand pe rand, în regiunile Volga-Don, Don-Nipru (Lebedia), Nipru ("Danapris"), Nistru ("Danastris"), ("Atelkuz") maghiarii finici (nume însemnand în limba lor "copiii pamantului") i-au supus militar pe mult mai numerosii romani ("romani", blakumen, ulaq) de pe litoralul nord-pontic pomeniti de Stela de la Sjonkeim, Saga lui Egil si Asmundar, Cantecul Nibelungilor, Cronica lui Nestor, Marcianus, Stefan din Bizant, Euagrios Scolasticul, Theophanes Confessor, Ioannes Mauropus, Godefridus din Viterbium, Oguzname, Hudud al Alam, Gardizi, Vardan etc. pentru ca, supusi la randul lor de kazari, sa se revolte împotriva acestora si sa accepte propunerea bulgarilor (894) de a-i ataca pe bizantini. Lasandu-se cumparati de bizantini, i-au tradat pe bulgari (895), drept care, prinsi "în cleste" de armatele acestora, care i-au alungat peste Nistru, si de cele ale pecenegilor chemati în sprijin de bulgari si care au fortat Niprul, s-au ridicat spre nord, spre Kiev, în permanent contact si conflict cu poporul "iesit din imperiul roman" care "toti sunt crestini si... mai multi decat maghiarii însa ... mult mai slabi" (Gardizi) - romanii. Indemnati de varego-slavi, alaturandu-li-se pecenegi, slavi (ca la "trei mii"), chiar capetenii valahe (ex.: "Ursu") vor porni spre vest în cautarea Pannoniei, fiind zdravan batuti de "volohii si slovianii care traiau acolo" (Nestor), la trecerea prin Carpatii Padurosi, acolo unde, ca marturie peste timp, au fost descoperite, în 1998, doua sate romanesti uitate în creierii muntilor si în evul mediu timpuriu - Mirke si Poroskovo. Cu un Almus (capetenia suprema) ranit, debuseaza în zonele deschise din actuala Ucraina subcarpatica si-si fixeaza "ringul" în locul numit, cu un cuvant romanesc - munca, pentru ca ajunsesera aici cu foarte multa truda=munca - Muncaci (Cronica lui Nestor, Cronica Pictata de la Viena). Ridica alte sase "cetati" în jurul Muncaci-ului (Simon de Keza), de unde confuzia (voita) a istoricilor unguri cu "Siebenbürgen" (Sapte cetati), denumirea data de sasi, jumatate de mileniu mai tarziu, Transilvaniei. Spre sfarsitul lui 896 ataca tara romano-slava a Ungului, ramasita a Moraviei Mari, dezmembrata cu un an mai devreme, îl ucid pe "duca" de acolo (termenul romanesc indica si preponderenta romaneasca a Tarii Ungului sau Unguarului), iar Arpad, urmasul lui Almus, se casatoreste cu fiica acestuia, pentru a se împamanteni. Asa ia nastere, în Ucraina subcarpatica, "Ungaria", numele de "unguari" cu sensul de cei ce stapanesc sau vin dinspre Ung fiind dat de bastinasii dintre Tisa si Dunarea de Mijloc "oarecum în batjocura" lui Arpad si soldatilor sai. Abia în 903, maghiarii si aliatii lor coboara în Tara lui "Salanus", fixandu-si si o puternica baza de atac între Tisa, Bodrog si Dunare. Asa a început cucerirea maghiara a Pannoniei si etnogeneza poporului modern ungar. Secuii si etnogeneza ungara Referitor la componenta noului val de migratie în Pannonia, gestele precizeaza ca maghiarii, componenta conducatoare, erau razboinici încercati dar putin numerosi, însumand "108 neamuri nu mai multe. Iar celelalte care s-au unit cu ele sunt sau straine sau provenite din robi" (Simon de Keza), deci triburi cointeresate, datorita propriei slabiciuni, la asociere, sau supuse cu armele si luate la remorca valului maghiar: kazari, kabari, pecenego-cumani, bulgari, slavi si chiar "volohi". In regiunea Tisa-Dunarea Mijlocie navalesc peste slavi, bulgari si "blachi ac pastores romanorum" sau "blasi", care traiau "ca stapani" în ducatul lui Salanus, iar în dreapta Dunarii, peste slavi (moravi), germanici (franci), pastori blachi si romani timoceni (fugiti de la Diiu sau Vidin de frica bulgarilor si colonizati aici de franci în 816) si "latinii" sau "romanii", adica populatia bastinasa, apartinand romanitatii central-europene, care facea legatura între romanitatea orientala (romanii) si cea occidentala, din randul sau supravietuind astazi doar "romansii" (în Elvetia). Ulterior, dupa crestinare, regii de la Buda colonizeaza noi valuri pecenege si cumane, sau "Kune", si deschid portile tuturor dezmostenitilor din Occident pentru a-si întari potentialul economic si militar. Toti acestia aveau sa contribuie, în creuzetul pannon, la formarea (etnogeneza) poporului modern ungar. Nu însa si secuii, care au ramas o populatie distincta si care, chiar complet "maghiarizati" astazi, mai pastreaza numele si constiinta originii lor aparte. Gestele unguresti (Anonymus, Simon de Keza, Chronicon Pictum etc.) au acreditat ideea ca "Zaculos" - secuii ar fi "ramasite ale hunilor" care ar fi continuat sa vietuiasca dupa dezagregarea imperiului lui Attila în N-E Ungariei actuale si N-V Romaniei actuale, "în campia de la Cigla". Prea putin numerosi pentru a organiza ei însisi expeditii de prada în "ducatele" romanesti sau slave vecine, ar fi iesit în întampinarea valului maghiar, trecand prin nordul Transilvaniei în Galitia. O optiune dictata de interes, considerata un motiv suficient de catre unii cercetatori, la fel de interesati, în domeniul istoriei, pentru a acredita ideea unei apropieri dictate de "vocea sangelui" între secui si cei ce aveau sa intre în istorie sub numele slav de "unguri". Desi gestele timpurii si istoricii unguri - care le-au preluat unele opinii de interes practic, politic - atribuie ambelor popoare aceeasi origine "hunica", secuii fiind astfel un fel de precursori ai valului maghiar, la o cercetare mai atenta a izvoarelor, Clio restabileste adevarul: ungurii de astazi sunt maghiari, în aceeasi masura în care francezii pot fi considerati gali sau romanii - daci, iar maghiarii au fost o populatie asiatica evident deosebita de huni. Cum ramane însa cu secuii? Au fost sau nu "ramasite ale hunilor" înainte de ungurizare, ca urmare a actiunii politice sau religioase a regalitatii de la Buda, pana în veacul XVI, si ulterior, dupa "Mohacs Vesz" ("Pieirea de la Mohacs - 1526), de catre ungurimea întarita (prin refugiati) în Transilvania? Controverse In consens cu gestele unguresti, unii autori, în general umanistii, i-au considerat "de neam hunic" (ex.: A. Verancsics). Altii însa au apreciat, datorita sonoritatii numelui, ca sunt "mai vechi decat hunii, si de aceea se numesc scituli, adica sciti mici" (Antonio Possevino), fiind deci "un neam al scitilor" (G. Reicherstorfer, Stephan Taurinus, etc.), de unde numele, des folosite ca derivate din "zekel" - "siculi", "ciculi", "scituli". Pentru toti însa, cu exceptia lui Petrus Ranzanus (1420-1492) - calugar dominican de origine siciliana care vede în ei antica populatie a siculilor din Sicilia -, secuii au venit din stepele nord-pontice, "scitice", pe calea folosita de toate populatiile izvorate din îndepartata Asie, inclusiv de catre huni. Potrivit numelui, "szekelyek" derivat din "szkil-sikil" cu semnificatia, în "Eski Tukce" ("limba turca veche"), de oamenii "de neam ales", ne-am gandit candva ca ar fi vorba de un grup minor de migratie anterioara maghiarilor, poate un trib al avarilor sau mai curand un grup eterogen de elemente turco-asiatice, ramas sau infiltrat în secolele V-VIII în zona de hotar a Transilvaniei, prea putin important pentru a fi amintit de cronicarii timpurii în randul locuitorilor si stapanitorilor Pannoniei la venirea maghiarilor: "Slavii, Grecii, Teutonicii, Mesianii si Vlahii". Astazi însa, suntem în masura sa afirmam, dupa sursele germane ale secolelor IX-XIII (Annales Regni Francorum, Poeta Saxo, Analele Fuldense etc.), ca secuii sunt cu certitudine urmasii avarilor, neam turcic originar din Mongolia si înrudit lingvistic cu hunii, pecenegii, uzii, cumanii, tataro-mongolii, turcii etc., total diferiti de maghiarii finici. Si este imperios necesar sa o facem în conditiile în care tot mai multi pseudoliterati si pseudoistorici, servind constient sau nu, dintr-un patriotardism hilar, care nu are legatura nici cu stiinta, nici cu logica, interese... de peste Nistru, îi prezinta drept "daci" puri stimulandu-le dorinte de bantustanizare! Urmasii avarilor Avarii si-au facut aparitia în spatiul etnogenetic romanesc în cadrul marii migratii rasaritene de la jumatatea veacului VI. Atrasi initial de Dunarea maritima, colaboreaza, avand rolul predominant, cu slavii (sclavinii), kutrigurii hunici si cei pe care istoriografia stalinista ne-a obligat sa-i consideram slavi si pe care, studii mai vechi sau mai noi (Igor Gorman, Nico Zupanici, O.N Trubacov, F.P. Falin, Gh. Bratianu etc.), i-au identificat ca fiind sarmati, rude bune cu alanii - antii (urmasii lor, osetinii, traiesc si astazi în Caucaz). In timp ce slavii, antii, kutrigurii s-au concentrat asupra drumurilor imperiale spre Bizant, încercand sa forteze Dunarea, avarii au fost atrasi, pe calea nordica, de longobarzii germanici, pentru zdrobirea puterii gepizilor stabiliti în Pannonia. Oferta longobarda venea la timpul potrivit intrucat cererile avarilor adresate Imperiului Roman de Rasarit de a se stabili la sud de Dunare (558, 561) fusesera respinse. Condusi de Baian (558-605), îi zdrobesc pe gepizi, dar nu în folosul neamurilor rasculate. Se instaleaza ei însisi aici, fondand un kaganat între Alpi, nordul Carpatilor si Adriatica, în anul 567. Cuceresc Boemia, Moravia si Slovacia (570-580), Dalmatia si Illyria în 583, impunand Bizantului plata tributului, apoi, alaturi de slavi, devasteaza Dunarea pe ambele maluri (587) pana la Silistra si întreaga Peninsula Balcanica (592-598). Sunt momente care înscriu în istorie primul monument de limba romana, îndemnul "Torna, torna fratre" (vezi T. Simocatta si T. Confessor). Abia în 601 armatele imperiale reusesc sa-i opreasca, iar în Occident sunt opriti de regatul franc reunificat de Clotar al II-lea (584-629). Slabind dupa moartea lui Baian, primul kaganat se va prabusi sub loviturile slavilor din Pannonia care se rascoala în 623 sub conducerea lui Samo. Intrati sub controlul slavilor, avarii vor suferi pierderi grele la asedierea de catre acestia a Constantinopolului (626). Samo îi învinge în schimb pe francii lui Dagobert I (629-639), la Wogattisburg (631), consolindandu-si stapanirea în Pannonia, dar, la moartea sa, statul se destrama. Este o sansa pentru avari care primesc noi întariri din Asia, astfel ca, pe fundalul invaziei bulgare la Dunarea de Jos, kaganatul avar se reîntemeiaza în Pannonia (675-680), ajungand principalul rival al regatului franc, apoi al Imperiului carolingian, în Europa Centrala. In tot acest timp, avarii au fost în contact cu protoromanii din teritoriile supuse dar si cu cei de la est de Tisa, deoarece, în cautarea sarii, si-au extins controlul asupra lor. Arheologic, prezenta lor a putut fi identificata izolat la Felnac, Sanpetru, Socodor (jud. Arad), Dumbraveni sau Teius (jud. Alba). Lingvistic, marturie a coabitarii, ne-au lasat mostenire cuvantul zoapan (dregatorul însarcinat cu strangerea impozitelor de la comunitatile locale) care a dat romanescul jupan, jupan (Mircea Rusu), preluat ulterior si de slavi - pan, si de maghiari - ispan si probabil cuvintele kende (rom. Candea) si khan, khagan (kean, kan), preluate ulterior si de unguri. Simtindu-se puternici, avarii au atacat statul franc, fapt ce a dezlantuit razboiul condus împotriva lor, pana al zdrobirea completa a kaganatului avar de catre Carol cel Mare (768-814). Potrivit Analelor Regilor Franci, izvor contemporan, dar si unui izvor german ulterior (Poeta Saxo), acestia întemeiaza ca baza împotriva lor, înca din 782, marca de granita Ostmark (Austria). Tentativele avarilor de a desfiinta "Marca de Est" (Austria) esuand în 788, Carol pregateste contraofensiva si, în razboiul din anii 791-796, nimiceste statul avar, largind frontiera franca pana la Dunarea de Mijloc, în Pannonia. Trecand fluviul, armatele sale îi fugaresc pe avari pana la Tisa, astfel încat avarii "transTiszam fluvium fugatis". Noi expeditii au fost organizate în anii 800 si 805, cand se consemneaza în sursele germane ale anului 1277 ca "ungurii" ar fi fost alungati peste Tisa "unz in Walahen". Cum de sunt numiti "unguri" pentru anul 805, de catre un izvor tarziu? Fiindca, între timp, debusand maghiarii la Muncaci si cucerind Tara Ungului (de unde numele de "unguari"), ramasitele avarilor s-au pus sub protectia lor. De aceea Analele Fuldense vorbesc la anul 895/896 despre "avarii care îsi zic unguri". Momentul (895-896) coincide cu acela al plecarii de la "Cigla" si iesirii în calea lui Arpad, dupa gestele maghiare, a populatiei care îsi spunea, ea însasi, "szkil-sikil" adica "de neam ales". Si, ca ramasite ale avarilor, care supusesera la bir Imperiul de Rasarit si-l înfruntasera în Occident pe Carol cel Mare, dominand Europa Central-Rasariteana un sfert de mileniu, pretentia era justificata! Sunt si voci care pretind ca numele ar deriva de la "scaunul" de judecata, secuii fiind organizati din momentul stabilirii lor definitive în Carpatii Orientali pe "scaune". De unde "scaun" însa la populatii traind în corturi si obisnuite sa împarta dreptatea din saua calului? In "scaun" statea cneazul, voievodul (duca) adica "judex"-ul (jude) roman, apoi domnul, cand facea "judetul", deci termenul a fost împrumutat de la romani. Acesta si multe altele deoarece, împinsi de germani dincolo de Tisa, la "salbaticii vlahi", secuii au convietuit cu acestia în si "dincolo de muntii de zapada" (Rudolf din Ems). La venirea maghiarilor ei traiau "amestecati", confirma gestele unguresti, "cu romanii, vecinii lor din munti", de la care au învatat scrisul cu caractere runice (preluate de la varegi si kazari) si alaturi de care împartaseau "aceeasi soarta" (Simon de Keza, Chronicon Pictum). In 896 asadar, si-au parasit salasele si au plecat în Tara Ungului spre a i se închina lui Arpad, duce nu numai peste maghiarii finici, dar si peste multimea de triburi turanice, înrudite cu avarii. Este momentul în care, confirmand înca din 1956-1958 cercetarile arheologice, ca o dovada în plus a originii avare a secuilor, faza de declin a culturii avare a obiectelor turnate si ornamentate cu grifoni îsi înceteaza existenta în N-V Romaniei (Kurt Horedt). Aliati, dar neinclusi în conglomeratul de populatii care va duce la geneza ungara, secuii au fost utilizati de maghiari, apoi de unguri, ca în orice alianta între unul mai tare si altul mai slab: în avangarda, cu ocazia ofensivelor, si în ariergarda, la retragere! Se vor bucura insa de privilegii în schimbul slujbei lor militare si vor fi utilizati ca element înaintat împotriva mult prea numerosilor autohtoni pe care regalitatea ungara nu va putea niciodata sa-i înghita cu totul - romanii. Arheologia, toponimia, izvoarele scrise îi plaseaza în veacul X în Bihor, pe Aries, în centrul voievodal romanesc de la Moldovenesti, în (XI-XII), între Turda si Aiud, în Tara Barsei si în fine, în Carpatii Orientali unde vor fi colonizati definitiv printre romani si organizati pe "scaune" (szekek-sedes): Ciuc (zonele Miercurea Ciuc - Csikzeredda, Giurgeu - Gheorgheni - Gyergyö si Casin - Kaszon); Trei scaune (Haromszek: Sepsi, Kezdi, Orbai); Odorheiu (Szekelyudvárhely) si Mures (Mároszek). Astazi, considerabil întariti prin deznationalizarea romanilor, ei însisi maghiarizati, secuii vietuiesc în zone de concentrare în centrul si estul judetului Mures (parte din valea Muresului, Valea Nirajului, cursul superior al Tarnavei Mici, în Harghita - (Odorhei, Ciuc, Gheorghieni) si Covasna - (Sfantu Gheorghe, Covasna, Targu Secuiesc). In tot cursul Evului Mediu însa si o buna perioada de timp sub ocupatia romano-germana (1699-1806) si austriaca (1806-1867), datorita centurii etnice romanesti care i-a protejat, ca si mediului montan de adoptie, "s-au pastrat mai neatinsi decat orice alt popor - releva cu uimire umanistul Antonio Possevino (1533-1611) - în acea tara întarita de la natura, multumita pozitiei sale inaccesibile în multe locuri. Sunt totusi amestecati printre ei". Secuii - "neam aparte" de unguri Toti carturarii, calatorii, condottierii care au strabatut spatiul romanesc au constatat unicitatea secuilor, ca si a sasilor (alt element de colonizare), implanturi catolice în mediul romanesc. Catolicizati de unguri, acceptati ca aliati, în calitate de "natiune" medievala, urmasii avarilor au continuat sa fie, etnic, altceva. Pentru ca, în afara de rune (la care romanii, învatatorii lor, renuntasera în momentul adoptarii slavonei, ca limba liturgica si a alfabetului chirilic), secuii au continuat sa aiba o limba a lor, un port si obiceiuri proprii, înca vizibile în secolul XVI, pe cale de disparitie în veacurile XVII-XIX si de care numai unii batrani îsi mai amintesc astazi, în zona Ciucului, într-atat de eficace a fost procesul de ungurizare, sustinut în primul rand de biserica, atat cea catolica, cat si, ulterior, cea reformata. Faptul ca ei însisi se numesc înca, astazi, secui atesta însa persistenta constiintei unei deosebiri fundamentale fata de populatia ungureasca, a unei etnii originare distincte. In veacul XVI, desi la prima vedere "limba, ca si toate obiceiurile" îi apropiau de unguri (Georg Reicherstorffer), cunoscutul medic padovan Francesco della Valle (?-1545) nu se putea împiedica sa nu remarce ca "totusi sunt un neam barbar", altceva "decat ungurii". Cunoscator profund al realitatilor transilvane, marele carturar umanist Antonius Verantius (Anton Verancsics) (1504-1578) concluziona, în urma unei analize obiective, ca secuii "se deosebesc de unguri în aproape toate obiceiurile, legile si felul lor de a trai; afara de religie, si nu se aseamana nicidecum, nici ca limba, cand vorbesc dupa chipul stramosilor". Pe aceeasi linie, Nicolae Romanul (Nicolaus Olahus) (1493-1568), contemporanul sau, observa la secuii supusi ofensivei ungurizarii ca au înca "unele cuvinte proprii neamului lor". Carturarii umanisti îi defineau în unanimitate drept oameni facuti pentru razboi, un "neam de oameni crunti" (P. Ranzanus), "aspru si aprig, ca si nascut pentru lupta" (Georg Reichertorffer), cu "oameni cranceni si razboinici" (Stefan Brodarics), fapt care motiva rezistenta îndelungata în fata ungurizarii si pastrarea privilegiilor pe care regalitatea si marea nobilime ungureasca au fost silite sa li le recunoasca permanent. Practic, pana tarziu, în epoca moderna, împletindu-si istoria cu aceea a romanilor autohtoni si majoritari în Transilvania, împotrivindu-se ofensivei regalitatii magnatilor unguri si patriciatului sasesc, secuii s-au bucurat "de legi si obiceiuri cu totul deosebite de ale altora", împartindu-si "între ei mostenirile si slujbele pe triburi si spite de neam" (A. Possevino). Folositi exclusiv în slujbe militare, si-au pastrat calitatea de oameni liberi, traind în continuare "dupa legile si moravurilor lor" (Georg Reichertorffer). Si aceasta perpetuare a unor caracteristici ale organizarii primare, gentilico-tribale, a constituit un real suport al pastrarii individualitatii lor fata de mai puternicul aliat maghiar, al continuitatii secuiesti si evitarii procesului de topire etnica în procesul de formare în secolele X-XVI a poporului modern ungar. Situatie de exceptie la care o contributie de cea mai mare importanta si-a adus-o si marginalizarea lor, plasarea geo-politica "la marginea" (Francesco della Valle) teritoriilor controlate politico-militar de sefii uniunii tribale dominate de maghiari, apoi de regalitatea ungara. La baza colaborarii lor militare cu maghiarii, apoi cu ungurii au stat de la început, potrivit lui Simon de Keza, relatii de inechitate, întrucat prioritatea în teritoriile cucerite a alegerii zonelor de pasunat o aveau capeteniile maghiare si abia dupa aceea "si celelate neamuri si-au ales locuri unde le-a placut". Traind alaturi de romani, initial în Maramures si Bihor, apoi în teritoriile central si ulterior est-transilvane în care locuiesc si astazi, secuii au împrumutat de la acestia numeroase elemente de limba, port cultura materiala si spirituala, identificandu-se permanent în confruntarea cu regalitatea, apoi cu principii de origine ungara ai Transilvaniei, care au cautat sa le anuleze privilegiile initiale, atentand la libertatea lor, cu interesele poporului roman. The people stolen The known history of the Szeklers goes back to the dark ninth century, when new Asian hordes invaded the Romanian land, crossing its western border from the Tisza and the Middle Danube, after many and fierce battles with the "Latins" on the one hand, with the Blachs, Bulgarians and Slavs of Duke Salanus, on the other hand. Invasion of the "Children of the Earth" Dislocated from Central Asia, settling permanently in search of "new homelands" (Simon de Keza), one by one, in the regions of the Volga-Don, Don-Dnieper (Lebedia), Dnieper ("Danapris"), Dniester ("Danastris "), (" Atelkuz ") the Phoenician Hungarians (name meaning in their language" children of the earth ") subdued militarily the many more Romans (" Romans ", blakumen, ulaq) on the north-Pontic coast mentioned by Stela de at Sjonkeim, the Saga of Egil and Asmundar, the Song of the Nibelungs, the Chronicle of Nestor, Marcianus, Stephen of Byzantium, Euagrios the Scholastic, Theophanes Confessor, Ioannes Mauropus, Godefridus of Viterbium, Oguzname, Hudud of the Alam, Gardizi, Vardan etc. so that, in turn, subdued by the Khazars, they would revolt against them and accept the Bulgarians' proposal (894) to attack the Byzantines. Letting themselves be bought by the Byzantines, they betrayed the Bulgarians (895), as a result of which, caught "in tongs" by their armies, which drove them across the Dniester, and by those of the Pechenegs called in support of the Bulgarians and who forced the Dnieper, they rose to the north, to Kiev, in constant contact and conflict with the people "out of the Roman Empire" who "are all Christians and ... more than the Hungarians but ... much weaker" (Guards) - Romanians. Urged by the Varangians-Slavs, joined by the Pechenegs, Slavs (as in "three thousand"), even the Wallachian captains (eg: "Bear") will set out in search of Pannonia, being severely beaten by the Volhovians and Slovenes. who lived there "(Nestor), at the passage through the Forest Carpathians, where, as a testimony over time, were discovered, in 1998, two Romanian villages forgotten in the brains of the mountains and in the early Middle Ages - Mirke and Poroskovo. With a wounded Almus (supreme captain), he made his way to the open areas of present-day sub-Carpathian Ukraine and fixed his "ring" in the place called, with a Romanian word - work, because they had arrived here with a lot of effort = work - Muncaci (Chronicle of Nestor, Painted Chronicle of Vienna). He built six other "fortresses" around Muncaci (Simon de Keza), hence the (deliberate) confusion of Hungarian historians with "Siebenbürgen" (Seven fortresses), the name given by the Saxons, half a millennium later, to Transylvania. Towards the end of 896 he attacked the Roman-Slavic country of the Hungarian, the remnant of Great Moravia, dismembered a year earlier, I killed the "duke" from there (the Romanian term also indicates the Romanian preponderance of the Hungarian or Hungarian Country), and Arpad, the successor to Almus, he marries his daughter, in order to be buried. Thus was born, in sub-Carpathian Ukraine, "Hungary", the name "Hungarians" meaning those who ruled or came from Ung being given by the natives between the Tisza and the Middle Danube "somewhat in mockery" of Arpad and his soldiers. It was not until 903 that the Hungarians and their allies descended into the Land of "Salanus", establishing a strong base of attack between the Tisza, Bodrog and the Danube. Thus began the Hungarian conquest of Pannonia and the ethnogenesis of the modern Hungarian people. Szeklers and Hungarian ethnogenesis Regarding the component of the new wave of migration in Pannonia, the gestures specify that the Hungarians, the leading component, were tried but few warriors, totaling "108 nations no more. And the others who joined them are either foreign or from slaves." (Simon de Keza), so self-interested tribes, due to their own weakness, to the association, or subjected to weapons and taken to the trailer of the Hungarian wave: kazari, kabari, pecenego-cumani, bulgari, slav and even "volohi". In the Tisza-Middle Danube region, the Slavs, Bulgarians and "blachi ac pastores romanorum" or "blasi", who lived "as masters" in the duchy of Salanus, and on the right bank of the Danube, over the Slavs (Moravians), Germans (Franks), Blachi shepherds and Timocene Romans (fled from Diiu or Vidin for fear of the Bulgarians and colonized here by the Franks in 816) and "Latins" or "Romanians", ie the native population, belonging to Central European Romanism, which made the connection between Eastern Romanian ) and the western one, of which only the "Romanians" (in Switzerland) survive today. Later, after Christianity, the kings of Buda colonized new Pecheneg and Cuman waves, or "Kune", and opened the gates of all the disinherited in the West to strengthen their economic and military potential. All of them would contribute, in the Pannonian crucible, to the formation (ethnogenesis) of the modern Hungarian people. But not the Szeklers, who have remained a distinct population and who, even completely "Hungarianized" today, still retain the name and consciousness of their special origin. The Hungarian gestures (Anonymus, Simon de Keza, Chronicon Pictum, etc.) accredited the idea that "Zaculos" - the Szeklers would be "remnants of the Huns" who would have continued to live after the disintegration of Attila's empire in present-day NE Hungary and present-day Romania. "in the plain of Cigla". Too few to organize prey expeditions themselves in the neighboring Romanian or Slavic "duchies" would have gone out to meet the Hungarian wave, passing through northern Transylvania into Galicia. An option dictated by interest, considered a sufficient reason by some researchers, equally interested in the field of history, to accredit the idea of ​​a rapprochement dictated by the "voice of blood" between the Szeklers and those who would go down in history under the Slavic name of "Hungarians". Although the early gestures and Hungarian historians - who took over some opinions of practical, political interest - attribute to both peoples the same "Hunic" origin, the Szeklers being a kind of forerunners of the Hungarian wave, a closer search of the sources, Clio restores the truth: today's Hungarians are Hungarians, to the same extent that the French can be considered Gauls or Romanians - Dacians, and the Hungarians were an Asian population obviously distinct from the Huns. But what about the Szeklers? Were or were not "remnants of the Huns" before the Hungarianization, as a result of the political or religious action of the Buda royalty, until the sixteenth century, and later, after the "Mohacs Vesz" to the Hungarian fortified (by refugees) in Transylvania? Controversy In agreement with the Hungarian gestures, some authors, generally humanists, considered them "of the Hun family" (eg: A. Verancsics). But others appreciated, due to the sonority of the name, that they are "older than the Huns, and that is why they are called Scythians, meaning small Scythians" (Antonio Possevino), being therefore "a nation of Scythians" (G. Reicherstorfer, Stephan Taurinus, etc. .), hence the name, often used as derivatives of "zekel" - "siculi", "ciculi", "scituli". But for all but Petrus Ranzanus (1420-1492) - a Dominican monk of Sicilian descent who sees in them the ancient Sicilian Sicilian population - the Szeklers came from the North-Pontic, "Scythian" steppes, the path used by all populations originating in distant Asia, including the Huns. According to the name, "szekelyek" derived from "szkil-sikil" meaning, in "Eski Tukce" ("Old Turkish"), by people of "chosen race", we once thought it was a minor group of pre-Hungarian migration, perhaps a tribe of the Avars or rather a heterogeneous group of Turkish-Asian elements, left or infiltrated in the V-VIII centuries in the border area of ​​Transylvania, too unimportant to be remembered by early chroniclers among the inhabitants and the rulers of Pannonia at the arrival of the Hungarians: "Slavs, Greeks, Teutonics, Messiahs and Vlachs." Today, however, we are able to say, according to German sources of the ninth and thirteenth centuries (Annales Regni Francorum, Saxon Poet, Fuldense Annals, etc.), that the Szeklers are certainly descendants of the Avars, a Turkic people originally from Mongolia and linguistically related to the Huns, the Pechenegs, Uzis, Cumans, Tatars-Mongols, Turks, etc., totally different from the Phoenician Hungarians. And it is imperative to do so in the conditions in which more and more pseudoliterates and pseudo-historians, consciously or not, serving a hilarious patriotism, which has nothing to do with science or logic, interests ... across the Dniester, presents as pure "Dacians" stimulating their desires for bantustanization! The descendants of the Avars The ruins appeared in the Romanian ethnogenetic space during the great eastern migration from the middle of the 6th century. Initially attracted by the maritime Danube, he collaborates, having the predominant role, with the Slavs (slaves), the Hunnic kutriguri and those whom Stalinist historiography has forced us to consider Slavs and whom, older or newer studies (Igor Gorman, Nico Zupanici, ON Trubacov, FP Falin, Gh. Bratianu, etc.), identified them as Sarmatians, good relatives of the Alans - antii (their descendants, Ossetians, still live in the Caucasus today). While the Slavs, antiquities, kutriguri focused on the imperial roads to Byzantium, trying to force the Danube, the Avars were attracted, on the northern route, by the Germanic longobards, to crush the power of the Gepis established in Pannonia. The Lombard offer came at the right time because the claims of the Avars addressed to the Eastern Roman Empire to settle south of the Danube (558, 561) had been rejected. Led by Baian (558-605), they crush the Gepis, but not for the benefit of the rebellious nations. They settled here themselves, founding a kaganate between the Alps, the northern Carpathians and the Adriatic, in 567. They conquered Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia (570-580), Dalmatia and Illyria in 583, imposing a tribute on Byzantium, then, together with the Slavs, devastates the Danube on both banks (587) to Silistra and the entire Balkan Peninsula (592-598). There are moments that make the first Romanian-language monument in history, the exhortation "Torna, torna fratre" (see T. Simocatta and T. Confessor). It was not until 601 that the imperial armies managed to stop them, and in the West they were stopped by the Frankish kingdom reunited by Clotar II (584-629). Weakening after Baian's death, the first kaganate collapsed under the blows of the Slavs in Pannonia, which revolted in 623 under Samo. Under the control of the Slavs, the Avars would suffer heavy losses when they besieged Constantinople (626). Samo, on the other hand, defeated the Franks of Dagobert I (629-639) at Wogattisburg (631), consolidating his rule in Pannonia, but at his death the state fell apart. It is a chance for the Avars to receive new reinforcements from Asia, so that against the background of the Bulgarian invasion of the Lower Danube, the Avar kaganate is re-established in Pannonia (675-680), becoming the main rival of the Frankish kingdom, then the Carolingian Empire, in Europe. Central. During all this time, the Avars were in contact with the Proto-Romans in the subjugated territories but also with those east of the Tisza, because, in search of salt, they extended their control over them. Archaeologically, their presence could be identified in isolation at Felnac, Sanpetru, Socodor (Arad County), Dumbraveni or Teius (Alba County). Linguistically, a testimony of cohabitation, we have inherited the word zoapan (the governor in charge of collecting taxes from local communities) which gave the Romanian jupan, jupan (Mircea Rusu), later taken over by Slavs - pan, and Hungarians - Spanish and probably the words kende (rom. Candea) and khan, khagan (kean, kan), later taken over by the Hungarians. Feeling strong, the Avars attacked the Frankish state, which unleashed the war waged against them, until the complete crushing of the Avar kaganate by Charlemagne (768-814). According to the Annals of the Frankish Kings, a contemporary source, but also to a later German source (Saxon Poet), they founded as a base against them, since 782, the border mark Ostmark (Austria). Attempts by the Avars to abolish the "Eastern Mark" (Austria) failed in 788, Carol prepares a counter-offensive and, in the war of 791-796, destroys the Avar state, widening the Frankish border to the Middle Danube in Pannonia. Crossing the river, his armies chase the Avars to the Tisza, so that the Avars "transTiszam fluvium fugatis". New expeditions were organized in the years 800 and 805, when it is recorded in German sources in 1277 that the "Hungarians" were driven out over the Tisza "unz in Walahen". How are they called "Hungarians" for the year 805, by a late spring? Because, in the meantime, by diverting the Hungarians to Muncaci and conquering the Land of the Hungarians (hence the name "Hungarians"), the remnants of the Avars came under their protection. That is why the Fuldense Annals speak in the year 895/896 about "damages that call themselves Hungarians". The moment (895-896) coincides with that of the departure from "Cigla" and the departure in the way of Arpad, after the Hungarian gestures, of the population that called itself, "szkil-sikil", meaning "of chosen nation". And, as remnants of the Avars, who had subjugated the Eastern Empire and faced Charlemagne in the West, dominating Central and Eastern Europe for a quarter of a millennium, the claim was justified! There are also voices claiming that the name derives from the "seat" of the court, the Szeklers being organized from the moment of their final establishment in the Eastern Carpathians on "chairs". But where does the "chair" come from when people live in tents and are used to sharing justice in the saddle of the horse? In the "chair" sat the prince, the voivode (duke), meaning the "judex" (county) of Romania, then the lord, when he made the "county", so the term was borrowed from the Romans. This and many others because, pushed by the Germans beyond the Tisza, to the "savage Vlachs", the Szeklers lived with them in and "beyond the snow mountains" (Rudolf of Ems). When the Hungarians came, they lived "mixed", confirming the Hungarian gestures, "with the Romanians, their neighbors in the mountains", from whom they learned to write in runic characters (taken from Varangians and Khazars) and with whom they shared "the same fate" ( Simon de Keza, Chronicon Pictum). In 896, therefore, they left their settlements and went to the Hungarian Country to worship Arpad, leading not only over the Phoenician Hungarians, but also over the multitude of Turanian tribes, related to the Avars. It is the moment when, confirming from 1956-1958 the archeological researches, as an additional proof of the avaricious origin of the Szeklers, the phase of decline of the avaricious culture of the objects cast and decorated with griffins ceases its existence in N-V Romania (Kurt Horedt). Allies, but not included in the conglomeration of populations that will lead to the Hungarian genesis, the Szeklers were used by the Hungarians, then by the Hungarians, as in any alliance between one stronger and one weaker: in the vanguard, on the offensive, and in the rear, to retreat! However, they will enjoy privileges in exchange for their military service and will be used as an element against too many natives that the Hungarian royalty will never be able to swallow completely - the Romanians. New things Szeklers - "special race" of Hungarians All the scholars, travelers, leaders who crossed the Romanian space found the uniqueness of the Szeklers, as well as the Saxons (another element of colonization), Catholic implants in the Romanian environment. Catholicized by the Hungarians, accepted as allies, as a medieval "nation", the descendants of the Avars continued to be, ethnically, something else. Because, apart from the runes (which the Romans, their teachers, had given up at the time of the adoption of Slavonic, as the liturgical language and the Cyrillic alphabet), the Szeklers continued to have their own language, dress and customs, still visible in the twentieth century. XVI, on the verge of extinction in the XVII-XIX centuries and which only some elders still remember today, in the Ciuc area, so effective was the Hungarianization process, supported primarily by the church, both Catholic and , later, the reformed one. The fact that they still call themselves Szeklers today, however, attests to the persistence of the consciousness of a fundamental difference from the Hungarian population, of a distinct original ethnicity. In the 16th century, although at first sight "language, like all customs" brought them closer to the Hungarians (Georg Reicherstorffer), the well-known Paduan physician Francesco della Valle (? -1545) could not help but notice that "I am still a barbarian nation. "other" than the Hungarians. A deep connoisseur of Transylvanian realities, the great humanist scholar Antonius Verantius (Anton Verancsics) (1504-1578) concluded, following an objective analysis, that the Szeklers "differ from the Hungarians in almost all their customs, laws and way of life; religion, and it does not resemble in any way, even as a language, when they speak in the image of their ancestors. Along the same lines, Nicolae Romanul (Nicolaus Olahus) (1493-1568), his contemporary, noticed in the Szeklers subject to the Hungarian offensive that they still had "some words of their own." Humanist scholars unanimously defined them as men made for war, a "nation of cruel men" (P. Ranzanus), "harsh and fierce, as if born for battle" (Georg Reichertorffer), with "hardened and warrior people" (Stefan Brodarics), which motivated the long-standing resistance to Hungarianization and the preservation of the privileges that the Hungarian royalty and great nobility were forced to permanently recognize. Practically, until late in the modern era, intertwining their history with that of the native and majority Romanians in Transylvania, opposing the offensive of the royalty of the Hungarian magnates and the Saxon patricians, the Szeklers enjoyed "laws and customs quite different from others. ", dividing among themselves" their inheritances and services on tribes and tribes "(A. Possevino). Used exclusively in military service, they retained their status as free men, still living "according to their laws and morals" (Georg Reichertorffer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

bot request to add ELP links to info boxes

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/List of ELP language names

I have the list of language articles maintained by the Endangered Languages Project and am requesting a bot to add them to our info boxes, analogous to the Glottolog etc. links. Wanted to give everyone a heads-up in case you think there may be complications. I did one by hand at Dâw language as an example.

The ELP covers 3000+ languages. They have demographic data, sometimes quite different from the numbers Ethn. reports, and their sources are clear. They're also freely available and so will be accessible to more of our readers. (Ethn. is now $480/year without map access.)

I'm planning on asking the bot to ID the correct article for each ELP link by tracing the ISO redirect, verify that that ISO code is actually listed in the info box (it's been years since we verified they match, so some of them won't any longer), and add the ELP link and name as params in the box. Since the ELP language "code" is just the identifying part of the URL and has no other meaning, it would probably be best for our box to display the name rather than the code, as it currently is in the Dâw article. (But that can be adjusted in the box template after the bot is run.) There will be more than one ELP link in some info boxes, so the bot will need to keep a list of those too, so we can add the needed level of support to the box template.

Any opinions? — kwami (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of any serious repercussions. Go ahead, and if the bot messes things up here and there, we can always clean up behind it. Most language pages are watched by some people, so things shouldn't stay bad for too long. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If unforeseen problems crop up, that the bot wasn't tracking, we'll have the master list to ID other pages that might have the same issue. — kwami (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm agnostic on whether these links should be included in the infobox rather than the "external links" section. If they are included, then I think they should be presented more succinctly than they currently are: I've started a discussion about that at Template talk:Infobox language#ELP and Glottopedia links. – Uanfala (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

New article to be expanded Controversy on Szekely language

Controversy on Szekely language I will work on this now. Magysze (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Moselle Franconian Wikipedia

Does anyone know if a Wikipedia in Moselle Franconian was or is being requested? And if not: is it possible to write in in the Luxembourgish Wikipedia using other Moselle Franconian varieties? --Son-of-my-comfort (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requests for new language Wikipedias are handled at Meta. That page links to a list of current proposals, and to instructions on how to request a new language project. Questions about what may done in the Luxembourgish Wikipedia should be asked there. The English Wikipedia has no power or standing in any other language project. - Donald Albury 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Overcategorization: Hindi and Urdu

I object to this line "colloquial registers of Hindi and Urdu are almost completely mutually intelligible, so they are sometimes classified as one language, Hindustani, instead of two separate languages" in the title of the website ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers

Hindi and Urdu have EXACTLY the same relationship that Serbian and Croatian have. The difference is that Hindi and Urdu are not European, thus the author's prejudice in dividing Hindi and Urdu as "separate" languages, even with this ridiculous heading noting they're actually the same spoken language. Serbian is spoken by the religiously Eastern Orthodox and uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Croatian is the Catholic, Roman alphabet version of the SAME language spoken in Serbia. Urdu is written with an Arabic script and its speakers are, by and large, Muslim. Hindi is written in its own, different script, and, by and large, spoken by Hindus, but these are the SAME language, like Serbo-Croatian. The differences and similarities in these two/four languages is striking, yet, in an apparent western bias, you divide the Hindi/Urdu speakers into two different languages (thereby lowering the number of speakers of this one true language, while uniting Serbo-Croatian to give them a higher position in the count of "number of speakers").

I write this by way of experience. I am a white North American native English speaker who butchers Spanish as my only semi-second language. But I have watched my Delhi wife converse effortlessly with South Indians (who supposedly don't speak Hindi, but I've never met one yet here in the USA that couldn't understand her Hindi) and, more to the point, Pakistanis, without issue. She speaks with them as easily as I can speak to an Australian. Sure, Australians don't sound like Americans, but my understanding of them is a WHOLE lot better than my Spanish speaking brethren. If Serbo-Croatian is going to be listed as one language (and it should be), Hindi and Urdu deserve the same. Mutual intelligibility is more important than religion or script or past political difference when the subject is "spoken languages". Please apply the same standard for eastern languages that you shower on western ones, and list Hindi-Urdu speakers as a whole, instead of dividing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.30.14 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources, both South Asian and western sources, describe it differently. The article Hindustani language exactly explains why Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible at the colloquial level, but not on the literary level. So they do not have "the same relationship that Serbian and Croatian have" (add: Bosnian, Montegrin). You will not succeed to write a text in Standard Croatian that will be unintelligible to a Serb, Bosnian or Montegrin provided they can read Latin script, whereas Hindi or Urdu texts at a sufficiently sophisticated level can be quite unintelligible to a speaker of the other variant. If anything is ridiculous here, it is to speak of an "apparent western bias". Quite to contrary, many Hindi and Urdu speakers find it condescending when English WP tells them that actually they speak the "same language". –Austronesier (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Accepted terminology for languages that are not currently spoken

Input from a broader community of scholars wanted for discussion of the terms 'dormant' or 'sleeping' vs 'extinct'/'dead' for languages that do not have a current community of speakers: see Indigenous Languages of the Americas: Talk page--AmyFou (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"South Scandinavian languages" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South Scandinavian languages. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#South Scandinavian languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Should Template:Cleanup lang mention the transl template as well?

I've been adding foreign language tags to Wikipedia for a while now, and I've noticed there's no mention of {{transl}} in the Cleanup lang template, or the supporting page for the template.

This, I think, is an issue that possibly needs acting upon. When I started adding foreign language tags, it was because, I think, I'd seen a cleanup lang template somewhere; clicked on it, and thought, "oh, right. So, I add {{lang|[ISO code]-Latn to romanised text, then, gotcha".

This wasn't correct; I should've used the transl template for romanised text, and I shouldn't have used the italic=no function for a number of words - because, as someone pointed out to me, if there's no indication to a seeing reader that a word should be pronounced differently, what's the point of doing so for a user with a screenreader? Not only that, the -Latn function causes some text to display oddly for certain viewers, leading some editors to actually remove the tags outright, as they think it interrupts the flow of the article and shouldn't be there. All of this, I emphasise, is my own fault. I'm still cleaning up my unfortunate mess today.

I know that Template:Lang mentions the transl function, but there's no mention of it in the Cleanup lang template or its supporting page. I really think it should; it's one thing getting editors to add lang tags, but it's another trying to raise awareness of the transl template, which even fewer seem to have heard of. It saves having to cleanup faulty language tags later, for one thing.

I don't know how changing the layout of the template would affect the pages it happens to be on, so apologies if this comes across as a "just do it, it's so easy" kind of comment for something that might actually be quite hard. However, I just had to point it out. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Language names: disambiguation

Feedback is being requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Disambiguation by language family. The question is whether something like Mango language (Sino-Tibetan) is better as a title or Mango (Sino-Tibetan language). This concerns about 15 articles. – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Language tagging

Is there a way to opt a page out of bot-aided spell-checks? It is nice that language tags assists spellcheckers in their semi-automatized cleanup task, but: who assists us in manually adding these tags for the benefit of an automatized process? Whenever I see this {{cleanup lang}}-tag added, I feel I'd rather check the spelling manually once in a while rather than to bloat the code, which makes the pages harder to edit. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bots can be excluded from a given page using {{bots}} (provided they're exclusion compliant). However, most typo fixing appears to be done manually (or semi-manually using AWB) – I don't know if there's a way to turn that off. The bigger issue here is that preventing spellchecker cock-ups is only one of the many purposes of lang tagging, a more important one has to do with accessibility – screen readers need the tag in order to appropriately render the text in the correct language rather than attempt to pronounce it as an English word. Screen readers should probably recognise some of the major languages, but I'd be surprised if they cared for the rest. I sincerely doubt lang tagging in an article like Medumba language would ever make a meaningful difference to accessibility. In principle, tagging there should be a good idea, but in practice it will involve a lot of effort with little tangible benefit. If it were up to me, {{cleanup lang}} would just be removed from this article – even if you agree with the need for inserting lang formatting there, there's absolutely no need to have such a technical task prominently advertised to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm continuing this at Template talk:Lang#Is the template needed for obscure languages? – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Spanish language in the Philippines vs. Philippine Spanish as a separate variety or dialect

A new editor has been added a language infobox and wording to the article Spanish language in the Philippines to be about Philippine Spanish as a distinct variety of Spanish, rather than just the history & usage of Spanish in the Philippines.

There were past discussions about this at Talk:Philippine Spanish#Merger and Talk:Philippine Spanish#Proposal to recover this page, where only one RS could be found describing it as a distinct variety of Spanish. Any additional insight would be much appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the new editor, Dbee384, to discuss here as well. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I saw one mention of Philippine Spanish here. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See also very lengthy discussions and research that make up the bulk of Talk:New Mexican Spanish (formerly Spanish in New Mexico for a while, I think, and certainly re-scoped to include that). In short, it is much, much more difficult to write an actually encyclopedic and properly sourced article on an alleged regional dialect, than to have a section on dialectal difference at a broader article on the history and status of a language in a particular region. A dialect article is certain not impossible, but there are far fewer sources for it (and many of them will be things like linguistics theses/dissertations at regional universities, which may not even be online-accessible but require a trip to the university library, and which aren't very good sources to begin with). We probably need a general article with more specific dialect-related section much more than we need a dialect article, and we don't need both (if we had both, it would be a likely merger, unless the resulting merged article was so long it hit WP:SIZE limits. English itself is a bit of an exception, because this is English Wikipedia. An article like American English is very viable and there are reams of sources immediately available via Google Scholar and other journal searches.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The source by Lipski mentioned in Talk:Philippine Spanish#Merger actually contains valuable data that illustrates the distinct (and pretty volatile) character of contenmporary Philippine Spanish, but at the same time gives the impression that much it is related to the L2- and semi-speaker status of ethnic Spaniards in the Philippines. It doens't look like a stable and established variant that could justify a standalone article. –Austronesier (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed MoS addition on optional stress marking in Russian, Ukrainian, Japanese, Korean, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC?

A WP:TALKFORK is not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

---

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC?, for a proposal relating to optional characters/marks for indicating vocal stress, used in some foreign languages, include "ruby" characters for Japanese and Korean, and znaki udareniya marks in Ukrainian and Russian. The short version is that, based on a rule already long found in MOS:JAPAN and consonant with WP:NOTDICT policy, MoS would instruct (in MOS:FOREIGN) not to use these marks (primarily intended for pedagogical purposes) except in unusual circumstances, like direct quotation, or discussion of the marks themselves. Target date for implementation is April 21. PS: This does not relate to Vietnamese tone marks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Even looking at the proposal, I'm not clear on what's being proposed. Is it that, except in extraordinary circumstances, we should not give the pronunciations of foreign words, as a violation of NOTADICT? Once we remove the pronunciations of Russian etc. words from WP, are we to go on to remove the pronunciations of English words as a violation of NOTADICT?

Also, I wasn't aware that ruby characters were used to indicate stress in Japanese and Korean. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think SMcCandlish's point is that the FL spelling of the lemma itself should not be hijacked to indicate pronunciation, like stress marks in Cyrillic, or Tagalog tuldik. These things only are used in dictionaries, but not in regular texts. It's not about separate IPA pronunciations. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But it's equivalent to IPA pronunciations, so why should one be allowed but the other not? You have the bold lemma, then in parentheses Cyrillic, Cyrillic with Latin transliteration, or Cyrillic with IPA. IPA is only used in a relatively small minority of articles. Russian orthography is close enough to phonemic that providing stress is all that is needed for the reader to be able to pronounce it. Whether the stress marking is in the Cyrillic or the transliteration isn't important, but we should have it somewhere. It would be quite a task to go through thousands of articles and add IPA (and verify that it's both correct and consistent) just because someone objects to adding stress marks based on a stringent reading of NOTADICT that we routinely violate with IPA and other guides to pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The wording's been tweaked to make better sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.