![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The speaker population estimates are confusing especially when compared to the ones given in Georgian language. Would someone please give the separate estimates for
My understanding from the data given is that the whole population of Georgia uses Georgian (because it is the official language and the only written language) but only about 70% (about 4 million) are native speakers. But that means that about 1.5 million people in Georgia are not native speakers of Georgian. Are they all speakers of the three dialects, or are there other languages (not South Caucasian) spoken in Georgia?
Jorge Stolfi 04:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have restored some edits by anonymous user 213.157.209.234:
This is a waste of time since the user in question has been refusing all dialogue. I see no way to stop this war, except perhaps by getting someone in Georgia to intervene. I will see what I can do...
Jorge Stolfi 02:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Levzur appears to have made his usual edits again, and I banned him for 48 hours while I try to figure out whether Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur has reached a conclusion yet. Anyone know what the status of arbitration is? Bryan 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
only 50 000 in turkey...so i have already met half of them cos my home town is home to roughly 25 000 muslim georgians, (in at least 30 villages) but the main body of georgian speakers here in turkey is in the north east and probably much more than 1 million in numbers( including laz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.77.206 ( talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's bad that the main names: South Caucasian languages and Category:Kartvelian languages do not match, although they have just the same meaning. (In the present situation, for an article on one of the languges to look not misleading, one needs to relate the two names as synonyms.) One of them should be renamed.-- Imz 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't make the change because my knowledge about these languages is limited. However, I believe that there is a mistake: "gruzinit" is the name in Hebrew, not Russian. I speak both Hebrew and Russian, and "gruzinit" is the name of Georgian in Hebrew; also, the "-it" ending is characteristic of Hebrew grammar. In Russian, one would say "gruzinskiy". However, before I make any changes, I'd like a confirmation, possibly by the original author of the paragraph in question.-- EngineeringCat 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
South Caucasian languages are said to be also called " Ibero-Caucasian languages" while the article with that name says that "Ibero-Caucasian languages" is a proposed family tree including South Caucasian languages. That fact mismatch needs to be resolved, although I have not competence enough to do it. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 08:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The table with sample words has a single column for both Mingrelian and Laz. Are the words taken from Mingrelian or Laz (when not the same)? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I just moved the Proto-Kartvelian consonants to where it belongs, on Proto-Kartvelian language. I think we should consider what we want to do with the entire Comparative Grammar section, because as it stands now it pretty much dwarfs the rest of the article. Also, could it be that there is more content there that would be more correctly placed on the Proto-Kartvelian language page? I'd like your input. -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is my belief that the page South Caucasian languages must be moved to page Kartvelian languages. Term South Caucasian languages, while not incorrect, can mislead readers who are not very experienced in linguistics. Namely, one can mistakenly think that South Caucasian languages include all of the languages of the geographic so-called South Caucasus while this is not the case; this has happened in my experience a couple of times. If one reads the article and does the research, they will be able to understand what South Caucasian languages are but when there is a less ambiguous term in existence, I do not see why one should choose the more ambiguous one for the title. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
South Caucasian languages → Kartvelian languages — Per WP:NCON articles should be named in accordance with common English usage. "Kartvelian" is becoming the most common name in linguistic academic circles for this group of languages. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. As proposer. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now. If the term "South Caucasian" can confuse people, so can "North(east/west) Caucasian". I would like to know what "is becoming the most common name" is supposed to mean precisely? Strong oppose to the nominator's (Comtesse) behavior surrounding the move. -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wierd. The article is, at present, located at Kartvelian languages, but the talk page is still here at Talk:South Caucasian languages. That needs to be fixed. In answer to JorisvS's question about "becoming most common name", I refer him/her to the bibliography on this very article, where the majority of references are to "Kartvelian". The volume name for Volume 1 of The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus is "Kartvelian Languages". Ruhlen and the other "lumpers" also generally use "Kartvelian" rather than "South Caucasian". At least among linguists, "Kartvelian" is the current term. I don't subscribe to ComtesseDeMingrelie's methods or reasons at all. I only propose this since "Kartvelian" is becoming a much more common name in linguistic academia than "South Caucasian". -- Taivo ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Well that's a fine old mess that has been created. I've reverted User:ComtesseDeMingrelie's copy and pastes moves as a clear contrevention of WP:CWW. Copying and pasting like this without attribution breaks our copyright rules and could, although very unlikely, lead to legal problems for Wikipedia. As such any reversion to the copy-paste versions is likely to be seen as disruptive and could lead to a block. The correct way to move the page is by moving it. As this request in contreversial (as seen by both the support and oppose votes above) a requested move discussion is the correct way to go. While this discussion takes place the article should stay at it's stable name (i.e. South Caucasian languages). I've also moved the talk page back (which was moved correctly) so as it once again matches the article title. I have no comment on the merits of either name and my comments here should not be seen as supporting one name or the other, I've just sorted out the mess that was created. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Agreed. For now, the name Kartvelian languages is much more common. References provided in the article show that. – BruTe Talk 07:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The name "Kartvelian" is not true. The Laz people are not used to "Kartvelian". The Svan people are not used to "Kartvelian". The true name of the page is "South Caucasian". The name "South Caucasian" is used by Laz people and Svan people. But, the name "Kartvelian" is used by Georgian people. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The term "Kartvelian" is English. The fact that the Laz don't use a cognate of it is irrelevant. That's a bit like saying we need to move the Georgia article to Sakartvelo because the Georgians do not call it "Georgia". Doesn't matter: that's what we call it in English. — kwami ( talk) 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kartvelian languages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Britannica":
international organisation comprising 27 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies....
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So far as I am aware, Turkey is a nation which exists on two continents, but Anatolia is a geographic term. I think we need consensus before we start referring to Turkey as a geographic region. μηδείς ( talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Although Alba's been banned as a sockpuppet I am going to institute the change in any case. μηδείς ( talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Johnston,_Alexander_Keith_(1804-1871)._Turkey_in_Asia,_Transcaucasia._1861_(EA).jpg FACT: the South Caucasian people were living there (before the Ancient Greeks came)... Böri ( talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to me to link the declension terms like ergative and lative, which don't (as far as I know) appear in IE languages. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kartvelian languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I checked up available sources including Boeder, Gamkrelidze, and Klimov and found only vaguely worded mentions of partial intelligibility of the languages. Only two of them (Mingrelian and Laz) could be considered dialects of same language (Zan), which is explained in the corresponding articles, but even this doesn't make them a dialect continuum because they are not contiguous. Needless to say there are no transitional dialects between Georgian and Svan, Georgian and Mingrelian, Svan and Mingrelian. I deleted the statement about a dialect continuum with its numerous—but empty—references. — 2dk ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
In the section "Higher-level connections", the article presently says:
I'm inclined to think most linguists would say there's no plausible evidence of a relationship, but I think they would refrain from saying whether a relationship is likely or not. Thus, Id' propose something like:
Am I right? Nø ( talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Kartvelian languages are mentioned in Hattic language § Classification. I wonder if the claim of possible connection is notable enough to be included in Kartvelian languages § Classification? Daask ( talk) 13:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
From the introductory paragraph. Seems a bit optimistic? 2600:1702:6D0:5160:2D31:7E6:F3F6:6145 ( talk) 01:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Is "Kartvelian languages" related to "Tengwar"?
17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 103.245.194.28 ( talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The speaker population estimates are confusing especially when compared to the ones given in Georgian language. Would someone please give the separate estimates for
My understanding from the data given is that the whole population of Georgia uses Georgian (because it is the official language and the only written language) but only about 70% (about 4 million) are native speakers. But that means that about 1.5 million people in Georgia are not native speakers of Georgian. Are they all speakers of the three dialects, or are there other languages (not South Caucasian) spoken in Georgia?
Jorge Stolfi 04:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have restored some edits by anonymous user 213.157.209.234:
This is a waste of time since the user in question has been refusing all dialogue. I see no way to stop this war, except perhaps by getting someone in Georgia to intervene. I will see what I can do...
Jorge Stolfi 02:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Levzur appears to have made his usual edits again, and I banned him for 48 hours while I try to figure out whether Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur has reached a conclusion yet. Anyone know what the status of arbitration is? Bryan 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
only 50 000 in turkey...so i have already met half of them cos my home town is home to roughly 25 000 muslim georgians, (in at least 30 villages) but the main body of georgian speakers here in turkey is in the north east and probably much more than 1 million in numbers( including laz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.77.206 ( talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's bad that the main names: South Caucasian languages and Category:Kartvelian languages do not match, although they have just the same meaning. (In the present situation, for an article on one of the languges to look not misleading, one needs to relate the two names as synonyms.) One of them should be renamed.-- Imz 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't make the change because my knowledge about these languages is limited. However, I believe that there is a mistake: "gruzinit" is the name in Hebrew, not Russian. I speak both Hebrew and Russian, and "gruzinit" is the name of Georgian in Hebrew; also, the "-it" ending is characteristic of Hebrew grammar. In Russian, one would say "gruzinskiy". However, before I make any changes, I'd like a confirmation, possibly by the original author of the paragraph in question.-- EngineeringCat 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
South Caucasian languages are said to be also called " Ibero-Caucasian languages" while the article with that name says that "Ibero-Caucasian languages" is a proposed family tree including South Caucasian languages. That fact mismatch needs to be resolved, although I have not competence enough to do it. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 08:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The table with sample words has a single column for both Mingrelian and Laz. Are the words taken from Mingrelian or Laz (when not the same)? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I just moved the Proto-Kartvelian consonants to where it belongs, on Proto-Kartvelian language. I think we should consider what we want to do with the entire Comparative Grammar section, because as it stands now it pretty much dwarfs the rest of the article. Also, could it be that there is more content there that would be more correctly placed on the Proto-Kartvelian language page? I'd like your input. -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is my belief that the page South Caucasian languages must be moved to page Kartvelian languages. Term South Caucasian languages, while not incorrect, can mislead readers who are not very experienced in linguistics. Namely, one can mistakenly think that South Caucasian languages include all of the languages of the geographic so-called South Caucasus while this is not the case; this has happened in my experience a couple of times. If one reads the article and does the research, they will be able to understand what South Caucasian languages are but when there is a less ambiguous term in existence, I do not see why one should choose the more ambiguous one for the title. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
South Caucasian languages → Kartvelian languages — Per WP:NCON articles should be named in accordance with common English usage. "Kartvelian" is becoming the most common name in linguistic academic circles for this group of languages. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. As proposer. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. -- ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now. If the term "South Caucasian" can confuse people, so can "North(east/west) Caucasian". I would like to know what "is becoming the most common name" is supposed to mean precisely? Strong oppose to the nominator's (Comtesse) behavior surrounding the move. -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wierd. The article is, at present, located at Kartvelian languages, but the talk page is still here at Talk:South Caucasian languages. That needs to be fixed. In answer to JorisvS's question about "becoming most common name", I refer him/her to the bibliography on this very article, where the majority of references are to "Kartvelian". The volume name for Volume 1 of The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus is "Kartvelian Languages". Ruhlen and the other "lumpers" also generally use "Kartvelian" rather than "South Caucasian". At least among linguists, "Kartvelian" is the current term. I don't subscribe to ComtesseDeMingrelie's methods or reasons at all. I only propose this since "Kartvelian" is becoming a much more common name in linguistic academia than "South Caucasian". -- Taivo ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Well that's a fine old mess that has been created. I've reverted User:ComtesseDeMingrelie's copy and pastes moves as a clear contrevention of WP:CWW. Copying and pasting like this without attribution breaks our copyright rules and could, although very unlikely, lead to legal problems for Wikipedia. As such any reversion to the copy-paste versions is likely to be seen as disruptive and could lead to a block. The correct way to move the page is by moving it. As this request in contreversial (as seen by both the support and oppose votes above) a requested move discussion is the correct way to go. While this discussion takes place the article should stay at it's stable name (i.e. South Caucasian languages). I've also moved the talk page back (which was moved correctly) so as it once again matches the article title. I have no comment on the merits of either name and my comments here should not be seen as supporting one name or the other, I've just sorted out the mess that was created. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Agreed. For now, the name Kartvelian languages is much more common. References provided in the article show that. – BruTe Talk 07:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The name "Kartvelian" is not true. The Laz people are not used to "Kartvelian". The Svan people are not used to "Kartvelian". The true name of the page is "South Caucasian". The name "South Caucasian" is used by Laz people and Svan people. But, the name "Kartvelian" is used by Georgian people. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The term "Kartvelian" is English. The fact that the Laz don't use a cognate of it is irrelevant. That's a bit like saying we need to move the Georgia article to Sakartvelo because the Georgians do not call it "Georgia". Doesn't matter: that's what we call it in English. — kwami ( talk) 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kartvelian languages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Britannica":
international organisation comprising 27 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies....
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So far as I am aware, Turkey is a nation which exists on two continents, but Anatolia is a geographic term. I think we need consensus before we start referring to Turkey as a geographic region. μηδείς ( talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Although Alba's been banned as a sockpuppet I am going to institute the change in any case. μηδείς ( talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Johnston,_Alexander_Keith_(1804-1871)._Turkey_in_Asia,_Transcaucasia._1861_(EA).jpg FACT: the South Caucasian people were living there (before the Ancient Greeks came)... Böri ( talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to me to link the declension terms like ergative and lative, which don't (as far as I know) appear in IE languages. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kartvelian languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I checked up available sources including Boeder, Gamkrelidze, and Klimov and found only vaguely worded mentions of partial intelligibility of the languages. Only two of them (Mingrelian and Laz) could be considered dialects of same language (Zan), which is explained in the corresponding articles, but even this doesn't make them a dialect continuum because they are not contiguous. Needless to say there are no transitional dialects between Georgian and Svan, Georgian and Mingrelian, Svan and Mingrelian. I deleted the statement about a dialect continuum with its numerous—but empty—references. — 2dk ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
In the section "Higher-level connections", the article presently says:
I'm inclined to think most linguists would say there's no plausible evidence of a relationship, but I think they would refrain from saying whether a relationship is likely or not. Thus, Id' propose something like:
Am I right? Nø ( talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Kartvelian languages are mentioned in Hattic language § Classification. I wonder if the claim of possible connection is notable enough to be included in Kartvelian languages § Classification? Daask ( talk) 13:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
From the introductory paragraph. Seems a bit optimistic? 2600:1702:6D0:5160:2D31:7E6:F3F6:6145 ( talk) 01:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Is "Kartvelian languages" related to "Tengwar"?
17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 103.245.194.28 ( talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)