This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ʿĀd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
they were in empty quarter not in Hejaz. (unsigned)
Unfortunately most of the information posted in this article is very speculative. Especially the part about the relation to other semitic languages. Since there is no proof that any of the MSAL (modern south arabian languages) are descended from the Adid language. " Mahra and Shahra languages are considered the purest of the Semitic tongues" is based on someones extreme POV. Furthermore, we have no epigraphic evidence of Adid from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xevorim ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Firstly I would dispute the adjective "pure" in any linguistic sense. Secondly there is no real evidence to link Shahra or Mehri for that matter to Eastern Semitic languages and thirdly it is disputable whether Eblaite was an Eastern semitic language or whether the scribal cuneiform tradition was responsible for the "Eastern semitic" elements evident in the epigraphic corpus attributed to Eblaite.-- Wildbe ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This article should be deleted and written from the ground up or at least completely reorganised and limited in content. We just know very little about them. What we do know is what is mentioned in the koran (and perhaps other texts?). We can cite these and perhaps mention that they are often associated with Ubar or something, but even keep it rather short at that. The "information" on pyramids and camels should obviously be removed as well as the part on language. As far as I know, noone really knows anything about the language they spoke or wrote, except that it probably was some kind of semetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.19.63 ( talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ʿĀd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
they were in empty quarter not in Hejaz. (unsigned)
Unfortunately most of the information posted in this article is very speculative. Especially the part about the relation to other semitic languages. Since there is no proof that any of the MSAL (modern south arabian languages) are descended from the Adid language. " Mahra and Shahra languages are considered the purest of the Semitic tongues" is based on someones extreme POV. Furthermore, we have no epigraphic evidence of Adid from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xevorim ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Firstly I would dispute the adjective "pure" in any linguistic sense. Secondly there is no real evidence to link Shahra or Mehri for that matter to Eastern Semitic languages and thirdly it is disputable whether Eblaite was an Eastern semitic language or whether the scribal cuneiform tradition was responsible for the "Eastern semitic" elements evident in the epigraphic corpus attributed to Eblaite.-- Wildbe ( talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This article should be deleted and written from the ground up or at least completely reorganised and limited in content. We just know very little about them. What we do know is what is mentioned in the koran (and perhaps other texts?). We can cite these and perhaps mention that they are often associated with Ubar or something, but even keep it rather short at that. The "information" on pyramids and camels should obviously be removed as well as the part on language. As far as I know, noone really knows anything about the language they spoke or wrote, except that it probably was some kind of semetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.19.63 ( talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)