This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The figures for the number of speakers of each language merely reflect the total population of each speech community. This is entirely unrealistic given that these are endangered languages, most of which are only spoken by the older generation. I would suggest that these figures be deleted until more precise evidence is provided, perhaps based on the population figures for people over a certain age. An even more accurate picture could be gained by providing a breakdown of the numbers of fluent speakers, semi-speakers, and those with limited speaking skills but good receptive skills in the languages. -- Markusdow ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed this article from Ryukyuan languages to Ryūkyūan languages in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nonetheless, proper noun in Okinawa still retains its uniqueness, ..." <-- What is this supposed to mean, please? Is it simply unclear grammar/style, or is it outright nonsense (vandalism)? Do you mean to say that places and the subjects of other proper nouns in Okinawa continue to be referred to by the Okinawan name, that they retain their original non-Japanese names? LordAmeth 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
should reflect its contents. I suggest renaming it to "Dispute among two groups of wikipedians whether Ryukyuan is a language or a dialect". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.132.146.66 ( talk)
All " Ryukyuan languages belong to Japonic language" statements rely on their similiarities or relations on voice. That means they (Ryukyuan languages) contain large numbers of cognates with Japonic languages. However, are they (those cognates) in basic vocabulary? If not, they were likely old loan words. So I added the Austronesian languages possibilities. -- 59.108.199.144 ( talk) 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no disputing that the Ryukyuan languages are extremely close genetic relatives of Japanese. There is a fringe theory that Japonic itself is Austronesian, and a more respectable but very speculative theory that Japonic has an Austronesian substrate and an Altaic superstratum. But the lead of this article is not a place to discuss that theory. Kjaer ( talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is written from a very politicized standpoint, and addresses the matter of whether the Ryukyuan dialects should be seen as dialects or separate languages in far too much depth. For linguists, such disputes are political, not linguistic.
This article needs a lot of attention by an expert. There is practically no description of the dialects as language at all - just a list of locally idiomatic words for thank you which is about as helpful as saying that while the Canadians say "hello," Americans say "howdy" and Australians say "g'day." This tells us nothing. If anyone knows an expert, please ask them to look at this article. Kjaer ( talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is somewhat political but as pointed out in the article, language and discussions of language and national identity often are! From a linguistics point of view, when a language becomes so different that speakers of one cannot understand speakers of another, then it is no longer a dialect but a separate language. However, by this definition countries such as Germany have many different languages, but most Germans will tell you that the various groups are "dialects" and not separate languages, because they generally see themselves as Germans. Similarly, Chinese has many "dialects" such as Cantonese and Fujianese which Mandarin speakers from the north cannot understand (nor could speakers of Cantonese understand Fujianese), but I met few Chinese who would consider them different languages, although from a linguistic point of view they are.
I would welcome input from someone who actually 1. has a good linguistics background and 2. knows the languages of the Ryuku islands who could comment on this - it is correct that an analysis of not only a lexicon (vocabulary) but also the grammar is important in order to understand the relationship of the language to modern Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
124.35.178.162 ( talk) 04:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
according to this article, http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/3039/2/uhm_phd_4271_r.pdf Okinawan is similar to Kagoshima Ben in accent are Kagoshima Ben and other Kyushu dialects such as Nagasaki just influenced by Kanto and Kansai Ben but originally they are similar to the idioms in Ryukyu?-- Kasumi-genx ( talk)
I agree in that but according to this document http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2602773.pdf there is a dialect in hizen that preserved the /ɸ/ pronunciation of /h/ in the 19th century so there is really some continuum between Ryukyuan and Kyushu...- Kasumi-genx ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
According to this document by Diego Collado, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17713 At many places in japan during the early 17th century the /ɸ/ to /h/ sound change had already completed,perhaps he was talking about Honshu Idioms like Edo and Kyoto, /ɸ/ to /h/ sound change is currently occurring in the surviving Ryukyu Idioms....--- Kasumi-genx ( talk)
I'd like to point out that Shibatani (1990), if I recall correctly, states that the Ryūkyūan dialects are not more divergent from Standard Japanese than the mainland dialects, and that there is no basis for postulating a binary split Ryūkyūan-Japanese. This means, essentially, that in this view, Ryūkyūan is paraphyletic and the most recent common ancestor of the Ryūkyūan dialects is not different from the most recent common ancestor of the mainland Japanese dialects. (Instead, he points to the Hachijō dialect group as the most divergent one, and the probable descendant of the "eastern dialect" of Old Japanese mentioned here.) I'm pretty sure this still reflects academic consensus, and the burden of proof is rather on those who claim that Ryūkyūan forms a valid node of its own. If Ryūkyūan is paraphyletic, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to call it a "language" of its own, as its ancestor is simply proto-Japanese, and "Japonic" is not different from Japanese, either. As I do not have Shibatani's book, perhaps someone else can find the reference and include the information in the article.
I do realise that the issue tends to get heavily politicised, but we should not allege that Shibatani has unscientific motives; to modern linguists, the dialect/language dichotomy has no ulterior significance, anyway, and they do not tell people how to talk or write. In fact, fundamentally, every linguistic system is equally important to them, and Ryūkyūan is investigated both historically and synchronically. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Vapour, your ideas can be seen as revisionist. Linguistics is a science based on evidence and experimentation, not random musings about history. Ryukyuan languages and Japanese are considered two discrete entities, not because anyone says "75% is the scientific line which distinguish language from dialect", but rather because all Ryukyuan languages have similar cognate percentages with all Japanese dialects, while all Japanese dialects have higher cognation percentages with each other:
More detailed evidence, including recent research on organization of Japanese dialects, has proven conclusively that Ryukyuan languages are a discrete group and that Japanese dialects form a sort of chain with several nodes branching off. If Amami was part of the same "dialect chain" as Kagoshimaben and Hyo-jungo, it would be expected to have a higher cognation percentage with Kagoshimaben than with Hyo-jungo due to the difference in distance. -- ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ ( talk) 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, linguistic is not a science, especially not an experimental science. Secondly, it is true that difference between Ryukyu variation of dialects and mainland variation are more well understood. However that understand says nothing about where the line between language and dialect is to be drawn. Therefore, while it is true that ryukyuan are "relatively" more distinct, that does not say anything about their status as language. Furthermore, your musing about "Ryukyuan languages and Japanese" only show your bias. More appropriate typology in Japanese academia is to categorise everything as hogen while correctly identifying Hondo hogen and Ryukyu hogen as the two major groups. [2]. In Japanese, the word "hogen" literally mean "local/regional tongue/language". Hence the assertion that "Ryukyuan is a langage(s) and not a dialect" is a debate over English semantic. Vapour ( talk)
It sounds like the Modern history section was written by a non-native speaker of English. There are lots of... issues with grammar. Can someone look it over and correct it? I don't have time right now. 128.192.98.201 ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My ja-3 friend can't fathom how トン普通語 could mean 'potato standard'. What does Amami have to do with potato? Also, the source cited is just gibberish symbols. ~ Crazytales (talk) (edits) 05:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
What evidence supports the fact that Ryukyuan languages have no separate word class for adjectives? I can't help but feel that this is really not the case, considering that adjectives ending in -san/han (and all variants thereof) are still intrinsically linked to adverbial forms and display numerous irregularities when compared to regular verbs. For instance, -san/han class adjectives cannot be directly negated and require an auxiliary verb to accomplish this. Consider Shuri: churasan "beautiful" > churakoo neen "not beautiful" (note also the topicalized adverbial form). If we consider other things like different processes of nominalization between these adjectives and verbs, as well as the ability to qualify nouns using the adjective root alone where verbs cannot do this, then adjectives would wholly have to be a separate class. Distinguishing them from nouns is simple on the basis that an adjective root is meaningless on its own (you cannot say *chura yan for "it is beauty", but would have to nominalize it as *churasa(a) yan), and nouns cannot be suffixed by -san/han. I suspect this applies to Southern Ryukyuan as well. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 18:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that the decline of the Ryukyuan languages was largely abetted by the Ryukyuans themselves, who wrote and spoke in standard Japanese on purpose along with encouragement in official policy. The Ryukyuans saw themselves and their language as backwards. general sources about the language are availible here.
Secondary mentions
Modern
03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Languages_of_China#Foreign_relations_and_the_bureau_of_translation_in_the_ming_dynasty
Transcription of Ryukyuan words with Chinese characters. The text is public domain.
使琉球錄 夷語 夷字
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/使琉球錄_(蕭崇業)/附
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/使琉球錄_(蕭崇業)/附
https://zh.wikisource.org/?title=使琉球錄_%28蕭崇業%29%2F附&variant=zh-hant
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2107652161
http://books.google.com/books/about/使琉球錄.html?id=Q6JrnQEACAAJ http://books.google.com/books/about/使琉球錄.html?id=ITlZmQEACAAJ
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/6540655 http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9230908
Shi Liuqiu lu : Yi yu yi zi fu / [Chen Kan zhuan] 使琉球錄 : 夷語夷字附 / [陳侃撰] Author/Creator: Chen, Kan, 1489-1538. 陳侃, 1489-1538.
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/重修使琉球錄
使琉球录三种-夷语(附)_国学导航
http://www.guoxue123.com/biji/ming/slql/008.htm
The list of words were appended to a text relating to Ming era missions to Ryukyu, specifically the mission of Chen Kan in 1534
Imperial Chinese missions to Ryukyu Kingdom
0-使琉球录-明-陈侃
http://wenxian.fanren8.com/06/15/80/0.htm
國朝典故卷之一百二 使琉球錄(明)陳侃 撰
http://www.guoxue123.com/other/gcdg/gcdg/107.htm
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I see File:Billboards_in_Okinawan.jpg embedded in the article, which shows an interesting modified hiragana. However, I can't find on Wikipedia how those kana are pronounced. For example, I see what looks like a modified ら on the billboard, but the kana doesn't appear under the Orthography section or the Okinawan scripts article? -- Saledomo ( talk) 04:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ryukyuan 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The sections on Proto-Ryukyuan should really be their own article; they have relatively little to do with the modern languages. 162.43.205.95 ( talk) 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It would appear PeoplePowerRadio wishes to alter the text regarding inter-intelligibility with Japanese. I sense that there is an NPOV and reliability issue. I encourage them to elaborate. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The figures for the number of speakers of each language merely reflect the total population of each speech community. This is entirely unrealistic given that these are endangered languages, most of which are only spoken by the older generation. I would suggest that these figures be deleted until more precise evidence is provided, perhaps based on the population figures for people over a certain age. An even more accurate picture could be gained by providing a breakdown of the numbers of fluent speakers, semi-speakers, and those with limited speaking skills but good receptive skills in the languages. -- Markusdow ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed this article from Ryukyuan languages to Ryūkyūan languages in accordance with the guidelines in the Manual of Style for Japanese articles. Bobo12345 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nonetheless, proper noun in Okinawa still retains its uniqueness, ..." <-- What is this supposed to mean, please? Is it simply unclear grammar/style, or is it outright nonsense (vandalism)? Do you mean to say that places and the subjects of other proper nouns in Okinawa continue to be referred to by the Okinawan name, that they retain their original non-Japanese names? LordAmeth 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
should reflect its contents. I suggest renaming it to "Dispute among two groups of wikipedians whether Ryukyuan is a language or a dialect". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.132.146.66 ( talk)
All " Ryukyuan languages belong to Japonic language" statements rely on their similiarities or relations on voice. That means they (Ryukyuan languages) contain large numbers of cognates with Japonic languages. However, are they (those cognates) in basic vocabulary? If not, they were likely old loan words. So I added the Austronesian languages possibilities. -- 59.108.199.144 ( talk) 11:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no disputing that the Ryukyuan languages are extremely close genetic relatives of Japanese. There is a fringe theory that Japonic itself is Austronesian, and a more respectable but very speculative theory that Japonic has an Austronesian substrate and an Altaic superstratum. But the lead of this article is not a place to discuss that theory. Kjaer ( talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is written from a very politicized standpoint, and addresses the matter of whether the Ryukyuan dialects should be seen as dialects or separate languages in far too much depth. For linguists, such disputes are political, not linguistic.
This article needs a lot of attention by an expert. There is practically no description of the dialects as language at all - just a list of locally idiomatic words for thank you which is about as helpful as saying that while the Canadians say "hello," Americans say "howdy" and Australians say "g'day." This tells us nothing. If anyone knows an expert, please ask them to look at this article. Kjaer ( talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is somewhat political but as pointed out in the article, language and discussions of language and national identity often are! From a linguistics point of view, when a language becomes so different that speakers of one cannot understand speakers of another, then it is no longer a dialect but a separate language. However, by this definition countries such as Germany have many different languages, but most Germans will tell you that the various groups are "dialects" and not separate languages, because they generally see themselves as Germans. Similarly, Chinese has many "dialects" such as Cantonese and Fujianese which Mandarin speakers from the north cannot understand (nor could speakers of Cantonese understand Fujianese), but I met few Chinese who would consider them different languages, although from a linguistic point of view they are.
I would welcome input from someone who actually 1. has a good linguistics background and 2. knows the languages of the Ryuku islands who could comment on this - it is correct that an analysis of not only a lexicon (vocabulary) but also the grammar is important in order to understand the relationship of the language to modern Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
124.35.178.162 ( talk) 04:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
according to this article, http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/3039/2/uhm_phd_4271_r.pdf Okinawan is similar to Kagoshima Ben in accent are Kagoshima Ben and other Kyushu dialects such as Nagasaki just influenced by Kanto and Kansai Ben but originally they are similar to the idioms in Ryukyu?-- Kasumi-genx ( talk)
I agree in that but according to this document http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2602773.pdf there is a dialect in hizen that preserved the /ɸ/ pronunciation of /h/ in the 19th century so there is really some continuum between Ryukyuan and Kyushu...- Kasumi-genx ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
According to this document by Diego Collado, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17713 At many places in japan during the early 17th century the /ɸ/ to /h/ sound change had already completed,perhaps he was talking about Honshu Idioms like Edo and Kyoto, /ɸ/ to /h/ sound change is currently occurring in the surviving Ryukyu Idioms....--- Kasumi-genx ( talk)
I'd like to point out that Shibatani (1990), if I recall correctly, states that the Ryūkyūan dialects are not more divergent from Standard Japanese than the mainland dialects, and that there is no basis for postulating a binary split Ryūkyūan-Japanese. This means, essentially, that in this view, Ryūkyūan is paraphyletic and the most recent common ancestor of the Ryūkyūan dialects is not different from the most recent common ancestor of the mainland Japanese dialects. (Instead, he points to the Hachijō dialect group as the most divergent one, and the probable descendant of the "eastern dialect" of Old Japanese mentioned here.) I'm pretty sure this still reflects academic consensus, and the burden of proof is rather on those who claim that Ryūkyūan forms a valid node of its own. If Ryūkyūan is paraphyletic, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to call it a "language" of its own, as its ancestor is simply proto-Japanese, and "Japonic" is not different from Japanese, either. As I do not have Shibatani's book, perhaps someone else can find the reference and include the information in the article.
I do realise that the issue tends to get heavily politicised, but we should not allege that Shibatani has unscientific motives; to modern linguists, the dialect/language dichotomy has no ulterior significance, anyway, and they do not tell people how to talk or write. In fact, fundamentally, every linguistic system is equally important to them, and Ryūkyūan is investigated both historically and synchronically. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Vapour, your ideas can be seen as revisionist. Linguistics is a science based on evidence and experimentation, not random musings about history. Ryukyuan languages and Japanese are considered two discrete entities, not because anyone says "75% is the scientific line which distinguish language from dialect", but rather because all Ryukyuan languages have similar cognate percentages with all Japanese dialects, while all Japanese dialects have higher cognation percentages with each other:
More detailed evidence, including recent research on organization of Japanese dialects, has proven conclusively that Ryukyuan languages are a discrete group and that Japanese dialects form a sort of chain with several nodes branching off. If Amami was part of the same "dialect chain" as Kagoshimaben and Hyo-jungo, it would be expected to have a higher cognation percentage with Kagoshimaben than with Hyo-jungo due to the difference in distance. -- ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ ( talk) 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, linguistic is not a science, especially not an experimental science. Secondly, it is true that difference between Ryukyu variation of dialects and mainland variation are more well understood. However that understand says nothing about where the line between language and dialect is to be drawn. Therefore, while it is true that ryukyuan are "relatively" more distinct, that does not say anything about their status as language. Furthermore, your musing about "Ryukyuan languages and Japanese" only show your bias. More appropriate typology in Japanese academia is to categorise everything as hogen while correctly identifying Hondo hogen and Ryukyu hogen as the two major groups. [2]. In Japanese, the word "hogen" literally mean "local/regional tongue/language". Hence the assertion that "Ryukyuan is a langage(s) and not a dialect" is a debate over English semantic. Vapour ( talk)
It sounds like the Modern history section was written by a non-native speaker of English. There are lots of... issues with grammar. Can someone look it over and correct it? I don't have time right now. 128.192.98.201 ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My ja-3 friend can't fathom how トン普通語 could mean 'potato standard'. What does Amami have to do with potato? Also, the source cited is just gibberish symbols. ~ Crazytales (talk) (edits) 05:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
What evidence supports the fact that Ryukyuan languages have no separate word class for adjectives? I can't help but feel that this is really not the case, considering that adjectives ending in -san/han (and all variants thereof) are still intrinsically linked to adverbial forms and display numerous irregularities when compared to regular verbs. For instance, -san/han class adjectives cannot be directly negated and require an auxiliary verb to accomplish this. Consider Shuri: churasan "beautiful" > churakoo neen "not beautiful" (note also the topicalized adverbial form). If we consider other things like different processes of nominalization between these adjectives and verbs, as well as the ability to qualify nouns using the adjective root alone where verbs cannot do this, then adjectives would wholly have to be a separate class. Distinguishing them from nouns is simple on the basis that an adjective root is meaningless on its own (you cannot say *chura yan for "it is beauty", but would have to nominalize it as *churasa(a) yan), and nouns cannot be suffixed by -san/han. I suspect this applies to Southern Ryukyuan as well. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 18:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that the decline of the Ryukyuan languages was largely abetted by the Ryukyuans themselves, who wrote and spoke in standard Japanese on purpose along with encouragement in official policy. The Ryukyuans saw themselves and their language as backwards. general sources about the language are availible here.
Secondary mentions
Modern
03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Languages_of_China#Foreign_relations_and_the_bureau_of_translation_in_the_ming_dynasty
Transcription of Ryukyuan words with Chinese characters. The text is public domain.
使琉球錄 夷語 夷字
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/使琉球錄_(蕭崇業)/附
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/使琉球錄_(蕭崇業)/附
https://zh.wikisource.org/?title=使琉球錄_%28蕭崇業%29%2F附&variant=zh-hant
http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2107652161
http://books.google.com/books/about/使琉球錄.html?id=Q6JrnQEACAAJ http://books.google.com/books/about/使琉球錄.html?id=ITlZmQEACAAJ
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/6540655 http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9230908
Shi Liuqiu lu : Yi yu yi zi fu / [Chen Kan zhuan] 使琉球錄 : 夷語夷字附 / [陳侃撰] Author/Creator: Chen, Kan, 1489-1538. 陳侃, 1489-1538.
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/重修使琉球錄
使琉球录三种-夷语(附)_国学导航
http://www.guoxue123.com/biji/ming/slql/008.htm
The list of words were appended to a text relating to Ming era missions to Ryukyu, specifically the mission of Chen Kan in 1534
Imperial Chinese missions to Ryukyu Kingdom
0-使琉球录-明-陈侃
http://wenxian.fanren8.com/06/15/80/0.htm
國朝典故卷之一百二 使琉球錄(明)陳侃 撰
http://www.guoxue123.com/other/gcdg/gcdg/107.htm
Rajmaan ( talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I see File:Billboards_in_Okinawan.jpg embedded in the article, which shows an interesting modified hiragana. However, I can't find on Wikipedia how those kana are pronounced. For example, I see what looks like a modified ら on the billboard, but the kana doesn't appear under the Orthography section or the Okinawan scripts article? -- Saledomo ( talk) 04:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ryukyuan 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The sections on Proto-Ryukyuan should really be their own article; they have relatively little to do with the modern languages. 162.43.205.95 ( talk) 19:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
It would appear PeoplePowerRadio wishes to alter the text regarding inter-intelligibility with Japanese. I sense that there is an NPOV and reliability issue. I encourage them to elaborate. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)