Talk:Dravidian languages

epiconum

A new section on gender uses the word epiconum more than once. The word is otherwise unknown to the Web; may I presume that epicene was intended? —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The recent additions to the grammar section seem to be a mechanical translation from the article on the German wiki, and contain many such flaws. The original text has Epicönum, which is the German word for epicene.

The whole thing needs extensive repair. It's best to go back to the original source, which in the case of the Nominal morphology section in the dewiki article is Krishnamurti (2003) chapter 6. The Verbal morphology and Syntax sections of the dewiki article have no citations, but may also be based on chapters 7 and 9 of Krishnamurti. Kanguole 08:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wonder whether epicœne is used much in English. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Dravidian and NE Caucasian connection

I added a paper showing evidence of a connection between Dravidian and NE Caucasian languages. Comments are welcome. Ionian9876 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I will remove it per WP:UNDUE. First, a linguistic paper published in non-specicalist journal ("Biological Sciences", seriously?) is always a red-flag, especially nowadays that mainstream historical linguistic journals are much less hesitant to accept papers about computational methods than 10 years ago. Secondly, the paper has little to zero impact: it has 6 cites on Google Scholar, and none of the citing papers actually mentions this peripheral proposal of the paper. –Austronesier (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Will the removed text be suitable for re-addition after reinforcement by this 2020 paper by Ceolin et al: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.488871/full that reiterates the same point? This paper has 20 cites and was cited in both this: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2020.0197 and this Science magazine article: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd9223 ? Ionian9876 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do you even ask when you restore it anyway with "WP:3RR" as edit battlecry in the summary? Try WP:BRD for a change.

The first citation you mention is "in-universe", and the second one (Matsumae et al. 2021) doesn't mention the proposed connection between Dravidian and NE Caucasian languages. How many among the 20 papers (not including self-cites from the same research group) do mention it? –Austronesier (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ionian9876, this isn't a really serious theory accepted among linguists, and Austronesier has made a strong case as to why it should not be considered. Specifically, this claim would wholly upend part of the understanding of historical linguistics and it was published in an unrelated journal, which sort of feels like a WP:ECREE problem. Specifically:

Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.

Emphasis added. This wasn't published in a place where the peer review would be conducted by the relevant community, and it's absolutely an extraordinary claim. Its inclusion here does not feel warranted. Warrenmck (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"this isn't a really serious theory accepted among linguists": While I agree that the specific claim of a close relation between Dravidian and Northeast Caucasian languages (not "Caucasian languages" as written by you in your edit summary; there are other language families of the Caucasus like the Kartvelian family and the Northwest Caucasian family) seems to be not discussed among linguists (maybe until now), Ceolin et al mention the discussion of Alarodian family and Elamo-Dravidian family among linguists both of which in some formulations include Elamite. Additionally, there is no prevailing view among linguists about the NE caucasian-Dravidian relation precisely because it had specifically not been discussed among linguists (publicly). So, no question here of "contradicted by the prevailing view..." or "would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". I think the claim of the relation is not an extraordinary claim but just an ordinary claim (how is it extraordinary without any prevailing view either specifically against it or for?). Ionian9876 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no prevailing view among linguists about the NE caucasian-Dravidian relation precisely because it had specifically not been discussed among linguists (publicly).

Linguists also haven't talked about the link between Icelandic, Sumerian, and Esperanto. Much for the same reasons, I imagine. Warrenmck (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems some editor(s) of Wikipedia make claims out of thin air. Esperanto is primarily drawn from Indo-European languages. Icelandic is an Indo-European language. From the Wikipedia article Sumerian language, "Sumerian was at one time widely held to be an Indo-European language, but that view later came to be almost universally rejected." @Warrenmck Ionian9876 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm implying that the notion that the connection between caucasian and Dravidian languages isn't discussed by linguists is because it isn't seen as plausible, akin to trying to demonstrate a link between Sumerian, Esperanto (which is a conlang), and Icelandic. Sometimes something isn't discussed much because to those familiar with the field it's completely implausible. While it's possible with time there may be a link from the Dravidian languages to other languages of the world, this paper isn't it, as evidenced by its publication not even being in the right field's journal. Sorry if that wasn't very clear. Warrenmck (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think most linguists think it is implausible. They just did not discuss it in an article or book as of yet. There is a difference between just not discussing a claim (for example, a five-year old child not discussing if the Big Bang happened) and being opposed to the claim (for example, a supporter of the now-falsified steady state hypothesis opposing that the Big Bang happened.) Anyway, I think we should not prolong the discussion unnecessarily. @Warrenmck Ionian9876 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, if they do oppose the claim without any reason (as evident by no published claim about the opposition), then the opposition to the claim is just wrong in principle. Ionian9876 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That the study wasn’t published in a journal related to the field, meaning that it wasn’t reviewed by people familiar with the actual topic, is a pretty substantial red flag. If they have more substantive evidence I’m certain they can get it accepted by linguists. Until then, its inclusion is clear WP:UNDUE. Note that I’m not the only linguist in here saying this. Warrenmck (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the evidence is somewhat significant although this is my personal opinion. Also, I do not accept your claims of authority on linguistics "...that I'm not the only linguist...": Essjay controversy. Ionian9876 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m only claiming authority insofar as I am a trained historical linguist, and I’m trying to explain why this type of evidence isn’t up to standard. This isn’t exclusive to linguistics; any paper published way outside the appropriate journal has the same issues. It is possible there is some real substance here, but without it being reviewed by people qualified on the topic (in peer review) it can’t really be given too much weight.

And again, why should this paper be included when countless other proposals for genetic relationship are not? Warrenmck (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, re: you’re invoking the Essjay controversy; I edit Wikipedia under my real name. It is not a huge leap to get from there to my profile on ResearchGate. I am not a professor of linguistics, nor do I have a PhD (in linguistics), but considering how consistent I am with linguistics being my jam here I don't know why I would pretend to have a qualification for clout, especially considering WP:NOR. Remember to assume good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, also remember that Krishnamurti (2003) does not discuss the NE Caucasian family or Alarodian languages at all. Ionian9876 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As the article notes, Dravidian has been compared with a vast number of language families. Is this proposal more notable than all of those? It appears to be advanced only by a small team, who never publish in linguistics venues. (One suspects that their reliance on systactic feature would not go down well there.) We do mention a few proposals that don't have wide support, but at least those are discussed in a fair bit of the linguistic literature. Kanguole 22:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Addionally, the long-range proposals for including Dravidian in hypothetical macrofamiilies that we mention in the article are cited from primary and secondary sources which actually make or discuss the claim of a genealogical relationship. The two papers cited now don't even do that: they just report a signal that is visible based on their novel methodolgy: A peculiar long-range connection has instead emerged from our experiments which may deserve some future attention. –Austronesier (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier, "they just report a signal": They report a significant signal. In addition to that, they did discuss the genealogical relationship. Their methodology is different from the 'traditional' methodology but that doesn't make it wrong. Their paper is cited in a paper of Science magazine. Aren't Ceolin et al notable enough to be included just because other recent papers which cite them do not discuss the claim specifically (assuming what you say is true) especially when my wording attributed the claim to them specifically ("Research by Ceolin and others...") in a non-confirmatory style ("provide evidence...")? Ionian9876 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

They report a significant signal.

In a journal outside of the relevant field, which is a very paltry amount of evidence to counter the entire understanding of linguistic relationships on. As has been pointed out, I cannot imagine that paper would have survived a linguistics journal and linguistics journals do not shy away from publishing data science papers at this point. That it was published outside of linguistics (again, WP:UNDUE).

This point was particularly salient:

As the article notes, Dravidian has been compared with a vast number of language families. Is this proposal more notable than all of those?

Warrenmck (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole, this proposal is atleast as notable as all those other claims if not more. Remember that Ceolin et al also claim to disprove linguistic relations between Uralic and Dravidian, between Indo-European and Dravidian, etc. You are correct that this claim of NE Caucasian connection is not discussed in the wider literature. However, I fail to see how this would make it not notable enough to be included. My wording "Research by Ceolin and others provide evidence..." attributed it to only Ceolin et al and did not sound confirmatory("provide evidence..."). You can suggest changes in the wording to make it more palatable. Ionian9876 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Aren't Ceolin et al notable enough to be included just because other recent papers which cite them do not discuss the claim...?

In a nutshell: exactly. Wikipedia is a tertiary source build on content from secondary sources. For articles about a specific topic, we require significant coverage in secondary sources. For a mention of something in an existing article (even a passing mention), the threshold is obviously not as high. It's a matter of WP:due weight which is established by consensus. But: the absolute necessary condition is coverage in secondary sources (not counting self-cites from the same authors). It is not a sufficient one, but with zero citations in secondary sources, a hypothesis cannot be even just mentioned in Wikipedia. It's simple: if others haven't cited it (yet), we won't do it either. WP is not a soapbox to propagate new ideas; we reflect coverage in reliable secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that adds up. Let's wait and see for any subsequent coverage. Ionian9876 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of speakers

The speaker figure of 220 million is cited to Kolipakam et al (2018). Within that paper (on the first page), the figure is cited to Steever in The Dravidian Languages, Routledge, 1998, p. 1. A second edition of the latter book appeared in 2020, in which the figure (in the same place) was given as 250 million. Kanguole 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential edit war brewing

@‎Lijing1989 and @Kanguole, you're both reverting a fair bit and I just wanted to encourage you to discuss it here. For what it's worth, I tend to be pretty heavy handed on removing content on linguistics articles but I actually think Lijing1989's intro to that section adds quite a bit of clarity given the structure of the article. Warrenmck (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lijing1989 has arrived here after the two of us disagreed on an unrelated page (Talk:Tang dynasty).

The text that they've added is a confusing mass of names and excessive bolding. Every one of those names, and the equivalences between them, is already present just below the inserted text. It also repeats some wording already present further down in the same section. Kanguole 21:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The current version has more detail and has lots of sources supported. The discussion about Tang dynasty is totally irrelated, I just put 5 comments in about 3 days and did not continue that topic. You discussed that topic about 4-5 months and still engage which I did not have interesting. Lijing1989 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does appear to be related: in the midst of a disagreement on Talk:Tang dynasty, and immediately after another editor reverted your edits to Tang dynasty, you came here for the first time, to re-insert old text.[1]

Your addition has more text, but all of it duplicates information that is already in this section. Moreover it is a blizzard of names and excessive bolding that is difficult to read.

As for "lots of sources", you removed one source, Krishnamurti (2003), pp. 19–20, and added one, Krishnamurti (2003), p. 21, which was already cited 5 times in that section (where the same info is presented). Kanguole 20:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

So you means I cannot have any disagreement with you in any article,right? If I have any disagreement with you, then you will relate the disagreement with the talk in Tang dynasty, right?

As I said before, I invloved in that topic about 3 days, You involved that topic about 5 months. I don't think it is such a big talk. Even in that topic, most of my comments was not reply for you but for Aza24.If you mean conflict, the major conflict is between I and Aza24. I even did not reply you much. If every disagreement in any topic can be related. I involved in the talk in Allies of World War II about 3 months which 100 times than tang topic and have lots of disagreement with mulitple editors. Did anybody relate any edition I made with that tallk? By the way, most of my editions was othe first time in the article I come so don't say anything like I came here first time. In the same way, you can say the same thing in my edition in Sasanian Empire Al-Farabi,Aristotelianism Holbon. I don't see much of the second time edition in my previous edition

So do you still have question about that topic? If you have, I can explain more. If no, then can we focus on this topic?

Lijing1989 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The link I provided above speaks for itself regarding what happened here.

If you wish to speak for the content of your partial revert of this edit, you could respond to the remarks I made about it above. Kanguole 09:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sheduled tribes in India

Are all Central Dravidian (Kolami–Parji), North Dravidian (Brahui-Kurukh), Gondi-Kui languages speakers considered as sheduled tribes in India? Kaiyr (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Not all speakers of Central Dravidian (Kolami–Parji), North Dravidian (Brahui-Kurukh), or Gondi-Kui languages are automatically considered Scheduled Tribes (ST) in India. Classification as a Scheduled Tribe depends on factors like geographic location, socio-economic conditions, and specific community recognition under Indian law. While many groups speaking these languages are included in the ST category, each state has its own list, which may recognize some communities as ST in one region but not in another.

For a comprehensive answer, it would help to check the most recent list of Scheduled Tribes issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs in India, as these lists are periodically updated based on demographic studies and cultural considerations. Hajpo (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)