This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of languages by first written account 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not an expert in this subject, but I think that the section that mentions the Canaanite language being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE is POV. The user who added this section (Hil44) appears to be biased regarding this topic (based on his edit history). The claim that has been made is quite extraordinary and contrary to what most scholars in this area think about Semitic and Canaanite languages. 49.178.161.28 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The section that mentions Canaanite languages being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE was made by a user (Hil44) who appears to be biased regarding topics related to the ancient Israelites and the Hebrew Bible. I think that someone with more expertise should look at the claims made in this Wikipedia article and also in the sources that are cited by Hil44, in order to confirm whether or not these extraordinary claims regarding the Canaanite languages have any merit. Thanks. 49.178.161.28 ( talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In conclusion, Steiner's monograph establishes the Semitic origins for some of the apotropaic segments in the Pyramid Texts, previously considered unintelligible parts.
The Dispilio Tablet ,found in Kastoria Greece, is currently the oldest written account carbon 14-dated to 5202 (± 123) BC with similarities in its carvings signs to the linear A language and from other Paleo-European clay tablets. I will leave the link down below so you can see the corresponding article about this. /info/en/?search=Dispilio_Tablet Ur1540 ( talk) 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
One of the most fascinating aspects about the independent invention of writing is that, as far as we know, it was done exactly four times: cuneiform, hieroglyphics, Chinese characters, and Maya glyphs. Perhaps this list should more clearly illustrate these lineages, as all other systems descend from one of these four origin points, with of course the proper treatment of undeciphered isolates. Remsense 留 19:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This article does not state information accurately, Sanskrit was documented near 1500BCE and beyond, not 1st century BCE. It should be corrected as people may use this for papers and whatnot. Ayunipear ( talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Mongolic: 13th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)" in By Family to "Mongolic: 7th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)"
Alexander Vovin's articles on the Khuis Tolgoi inscriptions as well as the wikipedia pages for them and Mongolian writing systems have them written in Middle Mongolian or a closely related language. TurEternal7 ( talk) 06:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This list has a lot of contestable claims in it. For example, I have honestly never heard of Malbergse Glossen in c.510 or the mid-5th-century Bergakker inscription before. These sound like WP:FRINGE claims. At most, the Bergakker inscription is an attestation of the Frankish language.
The 11th-century Hebban olla vogala is traditionally regarded as the first attestation of " Old Dutch", but it might also be Old English or some really odd West Flemish. Other claimants are the Wachtendonck Psalms (10th century) and the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow (9th century), but scholars (and nationalists) will argue endlessly over whether these are really "Dutch" or rather Franconian or Saxon or some other non-Dutch German dialect.
In other words, there is a wide range of texts claimed to be the "oldest" attestation of "Old Dutch", from the 5th to the 11th century, but who is to say which is right and which is wrong? If scholars cannot agree, then taking a position on a single claimant is WP:POV, is it not? I seriously wonder whether this article is, or can be, encyclopedically meaningful and objective, as these linguistic assessments, and the semantics of what to call them, will always remain somewhat subjective and arbitary. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of languages by first written account 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 |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not an expert in this subject, but I think that the section that mentions the Canaanite language being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE is POV. The user who added this section (Hil44) appears to be biased regarding this topic (based on his edit history). The claim that has been made is quite extraordinary and contrary to what most scholars in this area think about Semitic and Canaanite languages. 49.178.161.28 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The section that mentions Canaanite languages being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE was made by a user (Hil44) who appears to be biased regarding topics related to the ancient Israelites and the Hebrew Bible. I think that someone with more expertise should look at the claims made in this Wikipedia article and also in the sources that are cited by Hil44, in order to confirm whether or not these extraordinary claims regarding the Canaanite languages have any merit. Thanks. 49.178.161.28 ( talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
In conclusion, Steiner's monograph establishes the Semitic origins for some of the apotropaic segments in the Pyramid Texts, previously considered unintelligible parts.
The Dispilio Tablet ,found in Kastoria Greece, is currently the oldest written account carbon 14-dated to 5202 (± 123) BC with similarities in its carvings signs to the linear A language and from other Paleo-European clay tablets. I will leave the link down below so you can see the corresponding article about this. /info/en/?search=Dispilio_Tablet Ur1540 ( talk) 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
One of the most fascinating aspects about the independent invention of writing is that, as far as we know, it was done exactly four times: cuneiform, hieroglyphics, Chinese characters, and Maya glyphs. Perhaps this list should more clearly illustrate these lineages, as all other systems descend from one of these four origin points, with of course the proper treatment of undeciphered isolates. Remsense 留 19:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This article does not state information accurately, Sanskrit was documented near 1500BCE and beyond, not 1st century BCE. It should be corrected as people may use this for papers and whatnot. Ayunipear ( talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Mongolic: 13th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)" in By Family to "Mongolic: 7th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)"
Alexander Vovin's articles on the Khuis Tolgoi inscriptions as well as the wikipedia pages for them and Mongolian writing systems have them written in Middle Mongolian or a closely related language. TurEternal7 ( talk) 06:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This list has a lot of contestable claims in it. For example, I have honestly never heard of Malbergse Glossen in c.510 or the mid-5th-century Bergakker inscription before. These sound like WP:FRINGE claims. At most, the Bergakker inscription is an attestation of the Frankish language.
The 11th-century Hebban olla vogala is traditionally regarded as the first attestation of " Old Dutch", but it might also be Old English or some really odd West Flemish. Other claimants are the Wachtendonck Psalms (10th century) and the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow (9th century), but scholars (and nationalists) will argue endlessly over whether these are really "Dutch" or rather Franconian or Saxon or some other non-Dutch German dialect.
In other words, there is a wide range of texts claimed to be the "oldest" attestation of "Old Dutch", from the 5th to the 11th century, but who is to say which is right and which is wrong? If scholars cannot agree, then taking a position on a single claimant is WP:POV, is it not? I seriously wonder whether this article is, or can be, encyclopedically meaningful and objective, as these linguistic assessments, and the semantics of what to call them, will always remain somewhat subjective and arbitary. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)