This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Classical Mongolian numerals seem wrong to me, at least according to Groenbech-Krueger.
"Macrolanguage" is the term used by ISO 639-3 to describe Buryat, so it is the correct "technical" term used when referring to that standard. ( Taivo ( talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC))
I removed the section about stress from Buryat language again, leaving the notice in place that it is the same as in Khalka. Duplicating such information verbatim is not a good idea (maintenance nightmare). It also made the article look extremely unbalanced, because no other formal information is present there yet. -- Latebird ( talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
According to two dictionaries I consulted, the word xada in (Russian) Buryat does indeed primarily mean "mountain" instead of "rock, cliff" (as would be the case in Khalkha, Kalmyk etc.). However, as the person who recently changed this word might have been knowledgable about another variety of Buryat, I'd suggest that s/he name her source. Alternatively, s/he could also discuss the matter in Buryat. While I doubt that it is appropriate to change the label, the matter itself is quite interesting. G Purevdorj ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear 虞海! Excuse that I am very impatient tonight (for reasons entirely unrelated to Wikipedia), but I generally dislike it when people undo my redirects or renamings with any previous discussion. You might imagine that I had some reason to do so and so first try to discuss that reason before reverting.
There is very little linguistic evidence (or even data that could be used for such an argument) to argue that Russia Buriat and China Buriat are in any way "languages". They do not appear to be from a dialectological point of view, and I don't know any claims to this effect. The Ethnologue does not cite its literature in a transparent way and is therefore not transparent in a way that reliable sources are. You apparently went on to claim that Bargu Buriat is a standard in any meaningful way on the disambiguation page for Standard Mongolian. But the standard of Mongolian as spoken in China is the central dialect, i.e. not the eastern Buriat or western Oirat dialect. (This is stated and sourced on Mongolian language.) The Chinese educational authorities also enforce this. (Look at Oirat language for literature that confirms that claim.) So how do you arrive at such claims? G Purevdorj ( talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we have two crucial issues here. The one is being an official standard. If so, we name them language irrespective of whether they factually are or not. I completely agree with you that Kalmyk from a linguistic point of view need not be differentiated from other Oirat varieties on more than a dialectal basis, at max. The same seems to hold for Dungan: it is Mandarin Chinese, but with a particular standard in the Soviet union. The need to classify all language articles as language or dialect or something is somehow inconvenient, though. No matter how you do it, it contributes little additional information and will always offend someone. But if there is a solution to this problem, I suppose it would be delanguifying Kalmyk and Dungan rather than calling close-to-identical Buriat varities different languages. G Purevdorj ( talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Not ideal sources but the information checks out
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5umNthHltQC&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=5JN83EDDLl4C&pg=PA645#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BoWGituXr8MC&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q&f=false
Someone with more knowledge should create an article on this vagindra script.
I found the Russian article on vagindra script at ru:Вагиндра. Also here at Agvan_Dorzhiev#Vagindra_script.
Rajmaan ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
M. Alexander Castrén's Versuch einer burjätischen sprachlehre, nebst kurzem wörterverzeichniss (1857)
https://archive.org/details/malexandercastr00schigoog
https://archive.org/details/malexandercastr02castgoog
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Buriat, Russia Genesis Translation (1836)
https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_bxr_gen-1
Rajmaan ( talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who added the citation for the grammar, but I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to use premium services as a source. If someone with more knowledge can come in and fix that, that would be great. Densc ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Classical Mongolian numerals seem wrong to me, at least according to Groenbech-Krueger.
"Macrolanguage" is the term used by ISO 639-3 to describe Buryat, so it is the correct "technical" term used when referring to that standard. ( Taivo ( talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC))
I removed the section about stress from Buryat language again, leaving the notice in place that it is the same as in Khalka. Duplicating such information verbatim is not a good idea (maintenance nightmare). It also made the article look extremely unbalanced, because no other formal information is present there yet. -- Latebird ( talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
According to two dictionaries I consulted, the word xada in (Russian) Buryat does indeed primarily mean "mountain" instead of "rock, cliff" (as would be the case in Khalkha, Kalmyk etc.). However, as the person who recently changed this word might have been knowledgable about another variety of Buryat, I'd suggest that s/he name her source. Alternatively, s/he could also discuss the matter in Buryat. While I doubt that it is appropriate to change the label, the matter itself is quite interesting. G Purevdorj ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear 虞海! Excuse that I am very impatient tonight (for reasons entirely unrelated to Wikipedia), but I generally dislike it when people undo my redirects or renamings with any previous discussion. You might imagine that I had some reason to do so and so first try to discuss that reason before reverting.
There is very little linguistic evidence (or even data that could be used for such an argument) to argue that Russia Buriat and China Buriat are in any way "languages". They do not appear to be from a dialectological point of view, and I don't know any claims to this effect. The Ethnologue does not cite its literature in a transparent way and is therefore not transparent in a way that reliable sources are. You apparently went on to claim that Bargu Buriat is a standard in any meaningful way on the disambiguation page for Standard Mongolian. But the standard of Mongolian as spoken in China is the central dialect, i.e. not the eastern Buriat or western Oirat dialect. (This is stated and sourced on Mongolian language.) The Chinese educational authorities also enforce this. (Look at Oirat language for literature that confirms that claim.) So how do you arrive at such claims? G Purevdorj ( talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we have two crucial issues here. The one is being an official standard. If so, we name them language irrespective of whether they factually are or not. I completely agree with you that Kalmyk from a linguistic point of view need not be differentiated from other Oirat varieties on more than a dialectal basis, at max. The same seems to hold for Dungan: it is Mandarin Chinese, but with a particular standard in the Soviet union. The need to classify all language articles as language or dialect or something is somehow inconvenient, though. No matter how you do it, it contributes little additional information and will always offend someone. But if there is a solution to this problem, I suppose it would be delanguifying Kalmyk and Dungan rather than calling close-to-identical Buriat varities different languages. G Purevdorj ( talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Not ideal sources but the information checks out
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5umNthHltQC&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=5JN83EDDLl4C&pg=PA645#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BoWGituXr8MC&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q&f=false
Someone with more knowledge should create an article on this vagindra script.
I found the Russian article on vagindra script at ru:Вагиндра. Also here at Agvan_Dorzhiev#Vagindra_script.
Rajmaan ( talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
M. Alexander Castrén's Versuch einer burjätischen sprachlehre, nebst kurzem wörterverzeichniss (1857)
https://archive.org/details/malexandercastr00schigoog
https://archive.org/details/malexandercastr02castgoog
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Buriat, Russia Genesis Translation (1836)
https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_bxr_gen-1
Rajmaan ( talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who added the citation for the grammar, but I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to use premium services as a source. If someone with more knowledge can come in and fix that, that would be great. Densc ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)