Talk:Index of language articles

Older discussion

I'm adding Kachin to the list --- it's spoken by the Kachin hill people in northern Burma. Read Shelby Tucker's "Among Insurgents: Walking Through Burma" for info. It's great. --BrentDanzig 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Should we really add the name of a language in itself to this list? Doesn't it really suffice to have that in the article about the language itself? -- Timwi 16:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just thought it looked better that way. I don't mind if it gets reverted, though... كسيپ Cyp 16:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I edited the article for two reasons:

1. "Bayern" means "Bavaria", not "Bavarian"
2. as Timwi & كسيپ Cyp note above, we're putting English names, at least on this page.

(But for the record, in Bavarian, "Bairisch" means "Bavarian language or dialect"; in German, "Bayerisch" could be used to mean the same.) --Jerzy 16:21, 2003 Oct 15 (UTC)

---

Why won't /Xam work? Bennett Chronister 08:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cause it's got a slash at the beginning. - Mustafaa 14:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conlangs

Strongly suggest removing the conlangs from this list to a separate one. -==SV 03:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second the motion Ish ishwar 22:54, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Removed constructed languages, except Esperanto. — ishwar (SPEAK) 17:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I vote against. Anyone else want to see the constructed languages BACK in this list? Wiwaxia 06:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put Esperanto back, I say. It has a very long history, has a considerable body of literature, is used by a lot of people and is hardly comparable to insignificant conlangs. The average reader would certainly expect it to be in this list.

Peter Isotalo 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto is a natural language in the sence intended here. It is used for actual communication by lots of people in the whole world, and there are even more than a thousand native speakers. It is also a constructed language, but that doesn't stop it from being a natural language (read natural language). To exclude it from this list is discrimination against its speakers (especially against the native speakers). So I put it back in. Marcoscramer 15:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I know plenty of readers that I consider "average," and none of them expects an artificial language to be included in a list of natural languages. (The natural language article was written by someone pushing Esperanto...Esperanto is not a natural language.)

The basic division in the languages used by man is between "natural languages" and "artificial languages." "Artificial languages" are languages that have been invented by someone, as opposed to "natural languages" that develop naturally among peoples. Examples of artificial languages are Esperanto, Ido, Klingon, and Volapük. Artificial languages may be further divided into human languages, machine languages, fantasy languages, and so on. Some artificial languages, such as Esperanto, have been around for a while...some natural languages (creoles) are relatively recent. A natural language may arise in only a couple of generations. The deciding factor in whether a language is natural or artificial is not its age, but whether it came about naturally (as Haitian Creole) or artificially (as Esperanto). The average reader expects artificial languages (including Esperanto) to be listed with constructed languages and artificial languages, and such pages should exclude English, German, Latin, and all other natural languages. Just because some parents raise their children speaking only Esperanto or Klingon does not lend validity to an artificial language or in any way make it natural. —Stephen 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The distinction you make between natural and artificial languages is a very artificial distinction. There is no clear border. For example, German, as it is spoken nowadays, was "artificially created" by Martin Luther. Until his days, there existed no standard dialect of German. So when he translated the bible into German, he just used a mix of the three dialects he knew, and thus created what is now known as "Hochdeutsch". Does that mean we should remove German from this list? Clearly not!

Another problem with the natural-artificial distinction is that these words are used for two different distinctions: On the one hand for the distinction you (try to) draw. On the other hand, for the distinction between speakable languages and for example programming languages. When you mentioned "machine languages", did you mean programming languages? In that case you spoke very confusingly, because you mentioned programming languages together with speakable languages, though they constitute completely different categories.

I can't envisage any argument for this very artificial and ambiguou distinction to be used to divide the lists of languages in the Wikipedia. Of course, I can understand that people want to see Spanish, Swahili and Japanese on a different list than Klingon, Lojban and Volapük. But in this case one could simply distinguish between living languages and non-living language. I can see that this list also contains formerly living languages (e.g. Anglo-Saxon), so a good definition for this list would be to say that it contains only living languages and languages that once were living languages. (Though it might be more consistent if we split off the extinguished languages). Marcoscramer 21:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The distinction "I" make between natural and artificial languages is neither arbitrary nor "artificial." You are rationalizing, and rationalization is the tool used by extremists and the very young to "prove" any nonsense they wish to promote. Esperanto is a constructed language, an artificial language...Esperanto was made by human skill (Zamenhof’s) and produced by a man (Zamenhof). That’s what "artificial" means and that’s what Esperanto is. Synonyms of "artificial" include "synthetic" and "assembled." The antonym of "artificial" is "natural." "Natural" means formed by nature (as opposed to "artificial")...English, Spanish, and Latin are natural languages, and Esperanto is an artificial language, exactly the same as Volapük, Klingon and Lojban.

I have my degrees in several languages and I studied linguistics in my coursework. I have worked as a professional linguist and translator for more than four decades. In my youth I studied Esperanto along with several other conlangs and discovered that the reason that they are so easy is that they are not foreign languages at all. When an American speaks Esperanto, he’s just speaking simplified English with an automatic word substitution. When a Brazilian speaks Esperanto, he’s really just speaking Portuguese. As long as both speakers keep it simple, they can understand one another in a basic way.

As for your concerns about High German, Martin Luther corresponded with like-minded friends who lived in various parts of the country, and in their communications they evolved naturally a style of writing that suited them all. High German is like a man who has had a liver transplant from his brother ... Esperanto is Robby the Robot. High German is a natural language, and no reasonable, intelligent person would dispute that...but everyone who knows anything at all about Esperanto knows that it is an artificial language.

People who are interested in Esperanto or any other conlang expect to find it in constructed languages and artificial languages. People who are interested in reading about or studying an artificial language such as Esperanto do not care about Russian or Kabardian. By the same token, people who are interested in natural languages are not looking for Esperanto. People who see Esperanto in a list of only natural languages either think that a mistake has been made (if they know what Esperanto is), or they think Esperanto is actually a naturally evolved language (if they don’t know what it really is). By putting Esperanto in this list, you make the page look ridiculous and unprofessional, and you mislead people.

If you want a page that includes ALL languages, both natural and artificial, write it yourself and stop messing this one up. You can put a link in it to natural languages (that page is a disgrace, and it damages the reputations of its contributors).

As for subclasses and divisions, you may do them any way you like on your all-languages page. As for our page of natural languages, we insist on the same privilege. We will divide or comingle living and dead languages as we see fit. —Stephen 11:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now let's make this discussion emotional by comparing each other to extremists or young children. It suffices if you say my argument is incorrect; you don't have to dditionally insult me in such a way.

Anyway, for someone like me, who uses Esperanto to communicate with his girlfriend and many other friends, it is almost like an insult to say that Esperanto is just "simplified English/Portuguese/German with substitution" and that it is like a roboter. From your comments I can see that despite having learnt Esperanto, you never used in actual communication, and could thus never realise that it's a language in its own right. My mother tongue is German, and I know very well that when I speak Esperanto I am not speaking a "simplied German with substitution". That would sound very different and very silly. I often express myself in Esperanto in ways not possible in German (and when speaking or writing German or English, I sometimes find that I can't express something the way I want to, though I could in Esperanto).

I mentioned High German to show to you that the border between artificial and natural is not as clear cut as your argument requires. Additional examples: What about the "artificial" influence on language use by Academies like the Académie française? What about the "artificial" removement of Danish influence in the Icelandic language a few centuries back? What about "artificial" orthographic reforms like recently in German and Spanish, and less recently in many other languages? What about the "artificial" addition of a new word to a language by a single individual (normally an expert on something) as practiced in all living languages all the time? What about the "artificial" changes made to many European languages based on feminist reasoning? What about the "artificial" creation of specialists' languages like the Aviation English (where words like descend and ascend are not allowed for clarity)?

You still haven't given me a reason why an article called "List of languages" should only contain what you call "natural languages", and not all spoken languages. I think it's a serious discrimination against speakers of any spoken languaeg not included in the list. Wikipedia should not discriminate in such a way! Marcoscramer 16:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is a natural worry that admitting so-called conlangs will open the floodgate for languages-invented-by-spotty-teenagers. The discussion above has brought us to the real conclusion that there are no clear ways of dividing one type of language from another. Perhaps,, rather than all of us trying to be lawmakers her (and by that I mean, trying to produce a watertight argument), we should simply state what we want this list to be. Its title is vague, and there is reason to be exclusive: it helps keep the list more manageable. I think it's fair that we direct the reader to other lists of languages. I think, that in the specific case of Esperanto, we can all agree that Esperanto has achieved acceptence far above that of other conlangs. Can we accept that there is a significant grey area here without opening the list to ephemeralia? --Gareth Hughes 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want this to be a "list of languages" as the title suggests. And here we should take "language" to mean what is normally understood: Languages actually used or once actually used, i.e. no language projects which have never succeeded in actually becoming a language (i.e. a living language). By this sensible reading of "list of languages", Esperanto should certainly stay in, and possibly Ido, Interlingua and/or Volapük. I don't think any other conlangs meet the criterion (though this would have to be finally settled through further discussions). Marcoscramer 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Signed languages

Additionally, I ask:

Why exclude signed languages?

They are natural linguistic creations of these communities. I would think that these speakers of sign languages have been excluded from their societies enough already.

I move that their languages be included in your lists & other categorizations (no matter the complications this may bring to linguistic description & theory & whatever).

Peace. - Ish ishwar 22:54, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a major cleanup, letter by letter. I'm actually planning to move the Sign language below a different category below the alphabeticized list after I finished the letter Z. If anyone wants to oppose this, please tell me. It won't harm the list and I won't delete any, of course. — N-true 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

West & East Gurage

Should West Gurage (Ennemor, Endegen, Masqan, Ezha, Chaha/Cheha, Gumer/Gwemarra and Gura) and East Gurage (Inneqor, Selti, Ulbare, and Wolane) be entered as East Gurage and West Gurage, or should each of the "dialects" be entered as a separate language? Wiwaxia 06:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea; possibly it would be best to wait until somebody writes the relevant articles. The only Gurage language we currently have is Soddo language, which belongs to neither of those. - Mustafaa 09:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think only we should only list East Gurage language, West Gurage language, and Soddo Gurage language; and then the different dialects would be discussed or mentioned under the appropriate language: East Gurage language (dialects: Inneqor, Selti, Ulbarag, and Wolane); Soddo Gurage language (dialects: Soddo and Gogot); West Gurage language (dialects: Masqan, Ezha, Chaha, Gumer, Gura, Gyeto, Ennemor, Enegegny, and Ener). —Stephen 09:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Y languages and Z languages

I'm a little unclear as to why only languages beginning with Y and Z have their own page, and I'm unsure of the logic of how some languages end up on this page (with the complete list) and others only one of those two pages.

I propose that (at least) any Y and Z languages that have wikipedia pages should be included here with the complete list; we would then change the text that reads "only some major languages are included here" to "languages with wikipedia pages are included here" or something similar.

Any objections? --ntennis 03:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion has already occurred on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_spoken_and_sign_languages_beginning_with_the_letter_Y. The outcome was to keep it. However some good suggestions were made which were not followed up on, including moving this page to List of languages by name:Y. I have come to rely on the category pages rather than list pages, but for now i've moved the 'live' language links from the y page to the main list and deleted dead Y links from the main page. ntennis

Now moved List_of_spoken_and_sign_languages_beginning_with_the_letter_Y to List of languages by name: Y and same for Z. ntennis 02:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article on Acholi language is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you can contribute or want it to be improved, you can vote for this article there.--Fenice 16:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

List of most spoken languages per region?

I've been wondering about the existence of regional statistics for the most spoken languages.

The information that Chinese is the most common language does not really help if, e.g., creating an international website targetted at European users.

Likewise, Spanish may seem like an important language on a world-wide perspective, but the amount of native Spanish speakers in Europe is relatively small.

I guess a list of most spoken languages (native or learnt) per country would be sufficient (a regional list could be derived from that). Right now I can only find a list of official languages per country and a list of most spoken native languages world-wide, neither of which are sufficient (e.g. English is widely understood in many countries accross Europe, but not neccessarily an official (or native) language of every last one of them).

Getting the data might pose a huge problem, tho. I've heard that statistically the three most understood languages in Europe are English, German and French (pretty much in that order), so there have to be some statistics somewhere, though. Ashmodai 11:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You could try browsing the country index of Ethnologue: Ethnologue Country Index, sampling the number of languages per country. I can tell you that Nigeria and Cameroon will score pretty high on the 'languages per country' index, with about 400 and 239 languages respectively (source: African Voices (Web & Kembo-Sure 2000). — mark ✎ 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, and this map is helpful, too, though I'm not sure how it represents some widely spoken languages as every language only gets one red dot. — mark ✎ 16:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

missinig articles

Doing Languages of Ethiopia, I realize that many languages classified by Ethnologue do not even have minimal stubs. With a total of 6,800 (many of which do have Wikipedia articles), if would be useful to start some effort to create the missing articles. The stubs will pretty much have the Ethnologue information and link, and I wonder about copyright (what can we copy directly from ethnologue.com, and what information is proprietary). dab (ᛏ) 12:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

omgwtf?

there's no space between 'and' and 'germanic' at choise 22 at the A section on the list, can you put one there?? 66.169.1.14 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bunjevac language

Bunjevac language is language.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Languages_of_Serbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevac_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevačke_novine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bács-Bodrog (other languages = 70,545 (for the most part Bunjevac and Šokac))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica (Note: The Bunjevac language is also spoken in Subotica,...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombor (According to the 1910 census, the population of Sombor was 30,593 people of whom 11,881 spoke Serbian language, 10,078 Hungarian language, 6,289 Bunjevac language, 2,181 German language, etc.)

Baćo

Please don't cite Wikipedia itself, this does not count as a proof.

Ethnologue does not list it as a language: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=CS

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article itself claims: The status of the Bunjevac language as a language or even a dialect is vague, and instead it is often considered to be a dialect of Serbian or Croatian. — so the status of this dialect/language is a little disputed. Is there an article List of dialects or List of Serbocroatian dialects? There it might fit. — N-true 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Montenegrin language is also not listed here and people declare in census to speak both, Montenegrin and Bunjevac. So, what criteria you use here to define what is a language and what is not? I see that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian are listed here and they all are nothing else but one same language (Bunjevac and Montenegrin are also that same language). So, if you listed already these four variants, why not list Bunjevac and Montenegrin too? PANONIAN (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, PANONIAN, I agree. — N-true 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this list?

I've just stumblef across this article and am wondering what the point is. Is it intended to become a comprehensive list of all known human languages? Or something else? Dougg 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Australian Aboriginal languages

Is something missing like AUSTRALIA. Enlil Ninlil 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Latin...

Hi everybloody! :-P I changed the status of Latin from "extinct" to "almost extinct", it's because Latin is still in official use in Vatican/Holy See, and it still carries great importance in Roman Catholism. In fact, Latin is given a "formal status" by given those ISO codes. So, even though it looks like extincted, and there's no fluent speaker, it's NOT TOTALLY extinct. So, I would say that it's ALMOST extinct - this is the accurate way to state the situation. I hope you people can give a good reason why must Latin be considered EXTINCT. --Edmundkh 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, there is a Latin Wikipedia, so how can you say that Latin is extinct!? Sorry to say this, JUST USE YOUR BRAIN, if Latin is extinct, how can a Latin Wikipedia be made!? Did Latin Wikipedians came here from the past by time machine!? And who are the Latin Wikipedia readers!? Also ancient people who took a time machine!? Sorry, there are actually A FEW fluent speakers. And now there are 7722 articles, 153427 edits, 13 admins and 1622 users in Latin Wikipedia. So, tell me, do the 13 admins and 1622 users take a time machine from the past and come here to start and keep the Latin Wikipedia alive!? Please judge with your common sense. --Edmundkh 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you call it "almost extinct", however this is not a very good way to describe Latin's situation, judged from a linguistical point of view — Latin is used in the church and also by some enthusiasts who use it on some kind of Latin conventions... but this is not because some people still use the language, but because some are trying to revive it. As far as I know, there are quite some people who speak Latin fluently; maybe even native speakers (there are Esperanto native speakers, so why not raise one's children in Latin?). The use in churches doesn't mean anything, since also Old Church Latin and Coptic and Sanskrit are used during religious ceremonies and those languages are clearly extinct. Taking the existence of the Latin Wikipedia as a proof is silly — you don't seem to know much about the users and readers of that Wikipedia. Those are mostly people, who have learned Latin in school, at the university, or by themselves. I am also a user there, although my Latin isn't that good. By now way does this prove that Latin is still "alive"; this does only prove that there are people who are good enough in Latin to write articles. One could as well create a Wikipedia for Ancient Greek, Aramaic or Old Church Slavonic. There is one for Sanskrit, which as far as I know is also not spoken as a 1^st language anymore.

To sum it up, the situation is as follows: Latin has died out (or rather mutated into several other languages) many 100 years ago. It stopped being used on a daily base outside of churches (where it isn't used in much more than reciting existing pieces of text) many decades ago. Today it is merely used in said religious contexts, in schools of course, and by enthusiasts who like to write and read in this language. This is why it cannot be called "almost extinct". Ethnologue says "There is an effort to revive it." and "Second language only."; do I need to say more? —N-true 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

But N-true, this page is just A LIST OF LANGUAGES, so there is only the problem of whether the language exists, not whether the language is used in everyday life. It is IS THE LANGUAGE STILL THERE. --Edmundkh 11:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, by no way should one exclude Latin on this page, but describing it as "almost extinct" is about as wrong as claiming that the Titanic is "almost sunken", just because parts of it have been recovered. Everybody knows that there are people who use Latin, just as there are people who use Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Coptic, Middle Egyptian, Ubykh or Sumerian — this does not make these languages "almost extinct", though. I'm correcting the note in the article now. — 13:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a second language only and only having functions in limited domains is not enough to call it extinct. The status of latin, ancient greek copticm, biblical hebrew, pali and sanskrit and other languages that are used in specific domains aren't extinct just of very restricted use. Languages in which there is activly being generated texts can never be extinct. Extinct languages can only be studied if there are any texts preserved in that language, new texts are not generated. Maunus 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"extinct" usually means "no living native speakers". Otherwise, no known language can ever go extinct, because there will always be a few language geeks studying it and devising new texts in it. dab (𒁳) 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think religious specialists qualify as language geeks. Languages can be living in vey restricted social domains. There are indigenous languages that are lerned almost exclusiely as second languages and are counted as living none the less (see Viola Waterhouses "LEarning a second langauge first").Maunus 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your claims, there shouldn't be any extinct languages in the world, because every known dead language has a more or less restricted use, by linguists and other people who deal with them. It's true that modern texts are written or translated in(to) Latin, but this can be done with any dead language that's still known well enough. There are Asterix comics in Ancient Greek, maybe also Gothic or Old English. I know people who write their diaries in Middle Egyptian. Those languages are clearly extinct. Maybe you should read the article on extinct languages and judge again. Of course your current correction to the site is correct, but then we would have to write this note to almost all dead languages on the page, since almost none of them is dead and forgotten. — N-true 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed the pope was a language geek. the point is, what definition are you proposing? Languages that remain in use by non-language-geeks? Languages with either native speakers or religious specialist users? Extinct language are languages with no native speakers. Liturgical languages are a special case of extinct languages. Ivrit is a special case among these by having been revived. If you zoom in enough, you'll find language death is a process, not a sudden switch. Latin didn't 'die', it evolved, and "a language" is a thing defined by convention: The language of Shakespeare is also dead (and as a literary language never had "native speakers" in the first place), but we include it in "English", and by that it is an archaic register of a live language, not a dead one. You could consider Latin an archaic register of Italian, but that is not what is conventionally done. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that there is quite a difference between an extinct language that is only an object of philological studies and a language which is in use by a community for communicative purposes although within a confined social domain - and I feel that you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that all languages that are documented but has no native speakers and no communicative value are not extinct - but that a languages vitality status should e determined by it's vitality as a tool of communication. Inspite of what you may think linguists that study sumerian or hittite do not communicate in this language, nor do they form a community - speakers of latin however, even if having it as a second or third language do both. I have read the wikipedia article on extinct language (which by the way also stated that wales with 700,000 speakers was extinct) and I also disagree with the definition it gives. How about pidgins languages then? They are never first languages for anybody and according to wikipedias definition that should mean that they are extinct from birth. But under my definition (and that of most linguists working with pidgins) they are still living languages in use in communities and aren't considered extinct until this functionality disappears. In fact the functional definition used by most linguists is that a language is not extinct untill there are no speakers (not counting linguists or people who have learned theoretically) who can pass on functional knowledge of the language. I disagree with your definition of what an extinct language is but I will not revert if you chose to change latin into "extinct" status again. Maunus 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do understand, and I think I agree with you, but that doesn't change that this isn't what is usually meant by "extinct". If you can present a sourced discussion of a notion of "language vitality" I will be most interested. I agree that it is significant that there were at no point no Latin speakers (quite different from Sumerian etc.). But this isn't what we are discussing here. Your point should be made at language death instead. I won't edit-war about it either; I think it is arguable that a language that always had a sizeable community of fluent second-language speakers, as in Latin, never really went "extinct". This is the case of a liturgical language, and maybe we should simply introduce this as a third possiblity in the list. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you Maunus. You've did a good job that you placed the statement "religious and scholarly uses only". I hope we can stop arguing whether Latin is extinct. An extinct language should be defined as a language which has ZERO speakers and ZERO writers. Extinct language should be known by nobody at all, 0.0% of speakers and 0.0% of writers in the world. And for an unknown user, how can you associate Latin with Titanic!? Titanic is a ship, sunken means sunken, the whole ship was sunken, is it's f***ing stupid (sorry for saying this) to say that it's now "almost sunken". But I don't believe that Latin ever disappeared, as it's all the time used by the Holy See. Anyway, if a language still exists, even though there's only ONE non-native who knows this language, the language is still NOT extinct yet. ;-) I hope that Latin is classified as an endangered language. And I believe Latin will never extinct. --Edmundkh 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edmundkh, I appreciate that this is your opinion (which you state just after saying that you "hope we can stop arguing" no less), but we would be ever so much more interested in some reliable source confirming your definition. I'm not saying it's a wrong or impossible approach, I am saying that your favouring it counts for nothing. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dbachmann, you've change the statement that Latin is a liturgical language! Well, it's a good idea too. I pray that this is not seen as an editing war, I really don't want such war to happen, because I'm really not trying to start an editing war, I swear to God. Father God, I pray that I'm not being misunderstood that I'm waging an editing war. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen. I hope non-Christians are not offended by this. I'm just praying here. --Edmundkh 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, yes, we're all here to find a solution acceptable to everyone :) you may even pray in Latin, I won't mind (or hold myself refuted) - but you may also address your prayer orally, I don't think God makes a point of scanning Wikipedia talkpages for prayers (or in case you were praying to the camera, Luke 18:11-14 tells you Jesus frowns on that). dab (𒁳) 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, actually we can pray anywhere. But those Pharisees were just SHOWING OFF, not sincere for their prayer. That part of Luke just simply tell us about your heart of praying. I don't think God ever says that we cannot pray in the public. God just want to see our heart. Haha, I don't know Latin, I'm just here to talk about the existence of Latin, as I feel that it's not right to say that Latin is "extinct". We are getting more and more out of topic now. To talk about praying, please continue in my Talk Page. Thank you. --Edmundkh 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

extinct languages

O_o

oh for pity's sake, dont alphabetize "Middle X" and "Old X" under M and O. Do a sublist to X. This is the worst of wiktionary: practice (English under E, Old English under O, but Ancient Greek under A how silly is that). Don't alphabetize Ottoman Turkish under O, Vedic Sanskrit under V, or worse, random urban dialects under the name of some city. That should really be a matter of common sense. We also don't want a list of 250 English dialects here (Bronx English under B, Glasgow Scots under G,...), it will suffice to link varieties of English from the "English" entry. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Don't understand, how I could miss that. I will correct it later. I'll sort them under "Norse, Old", "Greek, Ancient", "German, Middle High", "Maori, Cook Islands" and so on... — N-true 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

most popular languages?

I'd like to know which languages are spoken by the most people. Chris Pickett 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, there's actually a link in the article to another article: List of languages by number of native speakers, see also Ethnologue list of most spoken languages for another calculation. — N-true 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that, thanks! Chris Pickett 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Andalusian

Hey, the andalusian is not a language, is only a dialect of Spanish, that shouldn`t be in the list.

As can be read on Andalusian Spanish, it's debatable whether it's a language on its own or just a dialect of Spanish. There are arguments speaking for both views. I'd say in dubio pro reo, so I'd leave Andalusian in the list. — N-true 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Language family links

Hi Mynameisnotpj. I don't agree with your removing of the language family links. I clearly see your point, having just one link to a certain topic in a section, but this rule is for plain texts, as far as I know, not for lists. I think the article's symmetry would suffer if you had only language family links in the upper 3 sections or so. Besides, when wanting to know about a certain language family appearing in the article, one has to go all the way up and look for the proper link (even search functions don't help here). Any opinions from anyone else? — N-true (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will happily concede if there is anywhere on Wikipedia that says that. i have not run across that myself, but I am willing to change my mind. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup: article and sublists

There are about 20 pages for different letters of the alphabet, with names like List of languages by name: E. Four of pages — letters K, M, N, and O — redirect to the combined List of languages by name, which covers the entire alphabet.

Further, in some cases the individual pages list more languages that the combined page (the L page has about 300 while the combined page has 39 under L), and in other cases fewer (the E page has just one [See if you can guess what it is. :-)] while the combined page has 19 under E).

In short, the organization of this list into pages is a mess, and if there's someone who cares about it, they should clean it up. I'm adding a "cleanup" tag to the combined page. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

is there any point to this list? Since Wikipedia isn't paper, alphabetized lists are completely unneeded in order to find stuff. I can't see any other purpose. Seriously, what is this list for? It's a nightmare to maintain and it seems to serve no purpose whatsoever. This holds equally for every purely alphabetic list of articles on Wikipedia of course. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

According to one explanation (from Finnish wiki (2003 or 4)) It's a technical question (eases the categorization in some server systems, if I remember correctlty), and a necessary method for avoiding conflicts to be consentrated... 80.186.71.30 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A completed list (at least all languages with ISO 639-3 codes) of languages would contain more than 7,000 entries, which accounts for hundreds of thousands of bytes. It is undoubtedly that it's a nightmare to maintain 26 alphabetized lists. What can we do? --✉ Hello World! 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about editing the individual articles to a format that is more easily used? Lotsa alternate names there in a "wrong place" if one tries to edit these... 80.186.71.30 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request merging from List of ISO 639-2 codes

There are lots of info about "native names" in the articles List of ISO 639-1 codes and List of ISO 639-2 codes. However, these native names are not included in the ISO standard; therefore I think that a better way is to move this part into this article (or its sub-lists A thru Z), remaining only ISO 639 codes, English names and French names (French names is a part of the ISO 639). --✉ Hello World! 03:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryukyuan languages

I noticed the Ryukyuan languages are missing here... I was going to add them in myself, but thought maybe it'd be better to just make a note here, since it looks like this list isn't so simple - anything I add here would also have to get added to the separate pages "List of languages starting with R" and for all I know there may be some complex script or something linking the two sets of lists. So rather than risk messing things up myself, can I ask someone else out there to help out and add Okinawan, Miyako, Amami-Oshima, Kunigami, and the other languages listed here to the list? Thanks much!! イッペーニフェーデービル！ LordAmeth (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

delete?

Note: Search mainspace for: "List of languages by name"

Note: See also discussion at User talk:Kwamikagami#List of languages by name: A and so forth

Since this is a list neither of languages in any particular accounting, nor of WP language articles, what exactly is it a list of? How do we decide which languages get to go here, and which in the "languages starting with the letter X" lists, and which don't get listed at all? And what's the point? Because it requires such a ridiculous amount of work to maintain, it is perpetually out of sync with both WP and our sources. By adding a link here, I can prevent an article with few links from being tagged as an orphan, but that's the only use I can think of. Any reason not to delete this and its subsidiary lists? — kwami (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• opposed

For me it is evident that the list is still in the process of development. I don;t understand how can a language list be obsolete. Languages are not dying and reappearing even within the life time of several generations, and the whole wiki life of the article is not even 10 years.The list is the only place in the WP where there is an attempt to make a comprehensive list of language names. Yes it is still an attempt and I myself have come across it quite recently and now am merely studying it. So if anybody thinks it is not interesting for him or her then let them go get involved in something they think is. What is the alternative? ISO lists? I don't feel comfortable with searching through ISO lists. I don't understand the point in deleting this lists. Isn't this project about education and development of information resources. So why delete a half cooked information source. Does anybody desperately need some wiki space or what? I am for keeping the article and removing the deletion stub. The lists are rather big in order to start any improving work I personally would first need to study them thoroughly and investigate possible reference sources. But the suggestion for deletion makes it impossible. I can't just leave everything else for the sake of saving these lists. In any case deleting is wrong. I hope there will be enough people to share my opinion.Lilit Gabyan (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is not that the languages are obsolete, of course! but that this list is. People have complained about it for years, but nothing's been done. What determines which languages are on the main list, and which on the subsidiary lists? Is it random? Whichever languages I like? It isn't a list of languages, but an arbitrary partial list of languages, and I don't see the point to that. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that having both this main list, and the subsidiary lists, is a bad idea. One should perhaps be merged into the other. (Size-wise: This page by itself is currently 68kb. The subsidiary lists, added together, amount to 230kb. So any merged information would still need to be split across 3 or 4 pages, especially if more info is added...)
2. The main meta-index, at Lists of languages, should be coordinating the overall system, and helping readers find what they need. Is this alphabetical index helping? Or could it be fairly easily tweaked (with extra information, ala List of constructed languages#Auxiliary languages) so that it does help readers? If so, then I'd oppose deletion, and suggest it just needs improvement. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am supporting the suggestion of reorganization and improvement. indeed the main meta-index, at Lists of languages, coordinating the overall system might be enough. Readers logically would prefer (I do) to work or study through the shorter pages. And it will make sense to group the language names in each alphabetical page as has been suggested above for example by #Constructed langugaes#Auxiliary languages#Vanishedlanguages etc., and even do certain grouping by main Language families. In that case the existence of the main (whole)page can be considered as еxceccive (although not necessarily). Would such reorganization so far be considered as improvement? Keep the subsidiary lists, keep the main meta index in the Lists of languages, add grouping of languages by type/structure/family/etc. on each alphabetical page, add references to existing main articles and known sources. If so then I will devote time to the lists when there is a final decision on reorganization structure. Lilit Gabyan (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. concur with above: very good effort, but lacks precision and flexibility (groupings), would be a mortal sin to delete. If I may give my thrupenceworth of advice regarding which langauges should be included in the main index and which should go to sub-indices (say languages of New Guinea), a good starting point may be a book for general divulgation such as languages of the world by K Katzner, which is literally a list of top 200 languages with a page each describing them (ok, phonetics are rubbish and not IPA, it's grammar-free and scripts are treated like decorations, e.g. Fraktur for German), the cut-off is number of speakers with some included for interest (e.g. Bask and !Xoo). Basically, I would think the list would be the dog's b. if it had number of speakers...--Squidonius (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We already have a List of languages by number of speakers, and it's an absolute mess and a continual target of edit wars. I would oppose adding any more info than ISO code and family, and even the latter is problematic, and a pain to update.

We can go with all languages with ISO3 codes, and add any additional langs that have their own article on WP. Perhaps the main page could be langs w ISO2 codes? (We already have lists of both.) What of the thousands of alternate names at Ethnologue? Do we even try to accommodate anything more than the primary Ethnologue name? or dialects? — kwami (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point I don't quite know what "oppose" or "support" would indicate, so I will spell out my opinion. The subsidiary "List of languages by name: X" lists should be deleted as redundant to this page. I don't really see what purpose this list serves over and above List of ISO 639-1 codes, but other editors say they find it useful, so I will not argue for the deletion of this page.

Most importantly, though, this page needs to have some selection criteria, and those criteria need to be spelled out in the lead section of the page. See WP:Stand-alone lists and WP:LEAD. Perhaps languages with an ISO code would be the best and most consistent criterion. Cnilep (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the sublists is that the main article would be unmanageable if everything were merged. So IMO we either need to reduce it to a simple linked TOC, or else have a second criterion for languages in the main list, such as ISO2 vs. ISO3 in the sub-lists. But it certainly isn't worth my time to do this: I'd just delete them. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There don't appear to be selection criteria for the subpages, either. Is there an argument to keep them all rather than just keeping the (slightly shorter but no less arbitrary) main list? Cnilep (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested that ISO3 be used as the criterion for the subpages.

As for the main page, there's ISO2. But we could also use it as an index for WP language articles: All blue links and no red ones on this page; a mirror of the Ethnologue index on the subpages.

Or something. It's not something I plan on using or maintaining. If no-one is willing to work these pages into something encyclopedic, then I suggest we either move them off mainspace, or make a request for deletion on one of the admin pages. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"warrants a real into"

Copied over from User talk:Quiddity#"warrants a real intro" if anyone has anything to add. — Lfdder (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

---

— begin

What's wrong with the intro as it was? The para you're restoring is a rambling piece about how it's difficult to count languages (even though it does not say that explicitly). Further, all the langs in Ethnologue are in ISO 639-3.

Finally, whether it's a "partial list of natural languages" is irrelevant; it's now an index of articles relating to languages on WP—as it should've been right from the start.

Surely there are more worthy battles to fight out there than a bloody index page? — Lfdder (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Lfdder: All lists of lists and related pages are just indexes to articles on Wikipedia. We still don't include selfrefs.

I helped create half the projects that track these things, I know what I'm blithering about.

If you disagree with my edits that revert yours, then WP:BRD suggests that you take it to the talkpage of the article. –Quiddity (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is that para distracts from what this list really is (an index). Whether E has this many languages and how many langs are in each family have nothing to do with it. — Lfdder (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to edit the lead, and put some effort in to it, then go ahead, but if you just delete the whole thing and replace it with 2 sentences, I don't feel that is sufficient respect for the content that currently exists.

The title is irrelevant: all Lists have to follow the same content guidelines, and an introduction to a "List of languages" is useful and informative for readers. –Quiddity (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There was an introduction. I thought it was adequate. Am I supposed to make stuff up to get it to the same length it was before? But it's not a list of languages; it's a list of language articles. — Lfdder (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a partial list of natural languages. If relevant redlinks for articles that should exist get added, then that's good.

If you'd like to continue this discussion, then please take it to the article's talkpage, so that other editors can contribute. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

— end

---

No, it's not good. It'll be a mess. See the discussion above. — Lfdder (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for copying the prior discussion, and not just starting afresh. :)

Note: This discussion was precipitated by my objection to Lfdder's Proposed-deletion of this article, whereupon he moved the page from List of languages by name to Index of language articles.

I disagree with that move, as almost all of the other language lists (Category:Lists of languages) follow of "List of x" title convention; additionally, naming it "Index of x" is both non-standard, and restricts the article's potential growth.

Additionally, I believe the longer (current) introduction is prefereable, and that the See Also section is acceptable.

However, getting input from other editors would be useful. –Quiddity (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not non-standard at all: Category:Indexes of topics. Did you choose to ignore everything that was said before? — Lfdder (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I helped create some of the Index/Glossary/Contents projects. We've been discussing and working on these sets of pages for years. (Some types of Indexes in particular, which are defined in various conflicting ways, often don't warrant inclusion in article(main)-space. E.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0–9) was moved to projectspace a few years ago. The reader-targetted "indexes" generally turn (eventually) into glossaries or outlines. But there are also thousands of "Lists of lists" and their ilk, which we're slowly organizing, and deciding on how we handle.)

If you want to fully understand all the implications/ramifications/subtleties of the various editor perspectives, and policy/guideline/precedent decisions, there's many hours of reading and research to get properly caught up, that I can point you in the general directions of, if you would like. It's a Carrollian rabbit hole.

Regarding the page-title: Again, the other "Lists of x languages", and "Lists of Lists", are the most relevant items to compare to. E.g. Lists of endangered languages.

I've reiterated the request for other editors (not just the two of us) to chime in, at the WikiProject Languages thread. –Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? A list of languages without scope is quite simply unmaintainable; this cannot be a list of languages. Now, if you want to call it List of articles or whatever, I don't really care. — Lfdder (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means, this article is very useful, and worthy of being kept. For example, I have for some time had the idea of using it to redirect "X-language" to "X language" so that the wikicode for "a French-language teacher" can be "a [[French-language]] teacher" (and likewise for "book" and "school"), and a piped link would not be necessary.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the only point of this is to index WP language articles, so that seems like an appropriate name. Otherwise I'd support deletion. It would be nice if the index could be auto-updated by a bot. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wymysorys?

I think Wymysorys should be added to the list, it has ISO 639-3 code (wym) It is a Germanic language spoken in the village of Wilamowice in Poland and is currently listed as an endangered language. It has an estimated total of between 70 and 100 speakers left. Falco iron (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)