Talk:Eastern Iranian languages

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pakistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

As opposed to the Middle Western Iranian dialects, Middle Eastern Iranian preserves word-final syllables.

What does this mean? Did the Western languages drop many entire word-final syllables from the parent language(s), which were maintained by the Eastern? Or is it supposed to say "vowels" or "consonants" instead of "syllables"? Otherwise the sentence makes no sense, since all words have to "end with syllables." — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Lol I was about to "discuss" about this. Don't know what its supposed to say tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.79.214 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was based on Ethnologue, which in turn follows Linguist List. These organizations undertake to maintain a current classification of the world's languages (whichever ones they can reach). Linguist List assigns an ISO code, which Ethnologue adopts. WP likes Linguist List, perhaps because it too likes to be culturally up-to-date. Being up-to-date, however, means frequently changing. Since this article and all the other related articles were created and abandoned by their editors Linguist List has done a double-take and has reclassified the Eastern Iranian languages as well as making a few other changes. So, our articles are not up-to-date. I suppose the original editors are still in shock about it. No one is working on these articles. We do have to be brought up to date and most of them needed clean-up anyway. I am doing some work in this area, very slowly. But, that is what generally is mainly wrong with them, apart from the usual reference and book citation clean-up required, and the over-condensation introducing ambiguity. That's what they need.Dave (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pamir group is merely a territorial grouping of languages, not a purely linguistic one. The actual article on Eastern Iranian languages needs to have more information on the various models of the actual classification of Eastern Iranian languages. It needs to have info on Pamir languages also, and it will be beneficial to mention the geographical location of each of these languages. So I agree with the suggestion of another user that Pamir languages must be merged here to help expand this article. Khestwol (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my friend I would disagree with any such merger. Indeed there might not be any linguistic justification for the postulation of a so called Pamiri language group. However if one does that one might as well get rid of the pages on the Pamiri people or the Uyghur people in which say that both are ethnicities. Before the Bolshevik revolution there is no evidence of the notion of there being a common Pamiri or Uyghur Ethnicity being visualized or constructed. Evidence points to a later date of conceptualization for both. The term "Pamiri Languages" nonetheless remains widespread academic usage and as serves exists as a constructed entity that helps define an 'imagined community' that being imagined becomes real. The Wikipedia page on Paleo-Siberian languages still exists and admittedly there is not always any significant linguistic commonality between the languages of these groups. I would like to keep the page on 'Pamiri languages' with the caveat that it is made explicit that the category of 'Pamiri languages' is quite constructed and wanting of comparable linguistic cohesively. Zaharous (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a WP:WHATABOUTX argument. The existence of an article on Pamiri people neither requires nor depends on the existence of the Pamir languages article. It is entirely possible that "Pamir" might today comprise a coherent ethnic identity, even though the languages continue to exist separate.

The continuing existence of Paleosiberian languages is probably also questionable — much like "Pamir languages", it is not much more than a glorified dictionary definition. (Brb, starting a discussion about that.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a glorified dictionary definition but it is also the imaginary linguistic component of of an imagined ethnic identity. All identities are imagined, this does not make them any less real. Its arbitrary social constructed essence is the outward manifestation of real power and social relations and manifestations of how Pamiris see themselves in relation to themselves and to 'others. Since it is not sought to demolish any page on any ethnicity on Wikipedia since they all are constructed why should their corresponding language groupings be deleted since they are imagined linguistic communities that are likewise constructions that are just as telling of real social relations of power as their corresponding ethnicities and or ethnicity? Zaharous (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can perhaps argue that national identities are "arbitrary" or "imaginary" constructs, but languages are not. They're defined by real traits found generalizable across idiolects, distinguishing one area from other. Any given sharp linguistic boundary (be it between French and English, or between Wakhi and Sarikoli) corresponds to hundreds if not thousands of these. And it's these traits that we document in the first place in linguistics (and in linguistic Wikipedia articles), not the social relations between their speakers.

Dialect continuums also exist and are a far fuzzier question of course, but as far as I know, the Pamir languages do not make up one, have not made up one for thousands of years, and never exclusively did (since, after all, they're a geographic grouping whose separation dates already to the Proto-Iranian times). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right we could argue that national identities are arbitrary or imaginary and languages are not but still none of this changes that language groups and even single languages are imagined communities. Take English for example, Most English speakers can understand each other but on Tangier Island off the coast of Virginia people speak a unique Restoration era dialect there. If you or I would listen to it we would only understand some 40-50% of it. Yet they are the 'same language'. Take Spanish and Portuguese that have some 80-90% lexical similarity, yet everyone says that they are different languages. There is a Wikipedia page on the "Chinese Language" perhaps taking into account that speakers of "various Chinese Languages" such as Cantonese or Mandarin consider the two to be just dialects of the same language, yet they are not noticeably mutually intelligible. Should we demolish the page on the Chinese Language as well? Languages and language groupings as the counterparts of their just as imagined ethnic groupings are likewise reflections of shared feelings of group solidarity and social relations of power. Clifford Geertz said something like- 'Man is a spider who has spun his world of constructs and is itself ensnared in it'. Ensnared might be a negative world for the phenomenon, we just as easily could call it just reality. If we were to deconstruct a mere fibre of the web i.e. the page on Pamiri languages, why not demolish the whole web along with the page on the "Chinese Language"? These fibers are themselves articulators of how Humanity constructs reality and by observing them we learn something about ourselves and others. Because of this and all the other reasons mentioned, I do not really like the idea of merging. Zaharous (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the two categories for Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian up for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map showing the Iranic languages regions is definitely wrong. The NorthWestern region of Iran (Azerbaijan) does not speak in Iranic language. They speak Azerbaijani Turkic, which is an Altaic language. The map gives the reference for the map as " en:Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap24.PNG". But if you click on the link you'll find the Azerbaijani region is not painted. Why are you giving wrong information? Farshad