Talk:List of languages by first written account: Difference between revisions

 

Line 78: Line 78:

Can we add the constructed language [[Simlish]] from 1996? [[Special:Contributions/~2025-33912-88|~2025-33912-88]] ([[User talk:~2025-33912-88|talk]]) 10:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we add the constructed language [[Simlish]] from 1996? [[Special:Contributions/~2025-33912-88|~2025-33912-88]] ([[User talk:~2025-33912-88|talk]]) 10:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

==Irish==

Irish is dated to the Wurzburg glosses of the 8th century, with the note “[[Primitive Irish]] [[Ogham inscriptions]] from the 4th century consist of personal names, patronymics and/or clan names.[108][109].”

But some are sentences. [[Ballyboodan Ogham Stone|CIIC 38]] says CORBI KOI MAQI LABRID, “Here is Corb, son of Labraid”. others say things like “Here is Mac-Iair, son of the Corcu Duibne,” or “here is Laminacca’s champion, son of the Corcu Duibne.” These are short inscriptions but are sentences, I would think. [[User:Sheila1988|Sheila1988]] ([[User talk:Sheila1988|talk]]) 18:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

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)[reply]

This point is discussed in the second paragraph of the lead. Kanguole 22:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)[reply]

That article seems a bit suspect to me in terms of neutrality. Are there any corroborating citations for the Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi by scholars who were not directly involved in the decipherment project? Remsense诉 07:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To underline this concern, most of the big claims of that article were added by a user who is now blocked. Remsense诉 07:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Old Dutch section should be somewhat improved with notes about Frankish Mywikimediaaccount (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article links to Dispilio tablet.
That article seems to have serious problems regarding sourcing and notability.
Though not a formal AfD (yet), I have here to delete that aricle.
Please chime in there if you have an opinion (or help improve the article)! Nø (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian: Plomin tablet doesn’t seem to be a complete sentence. See: its wiki article. Should be moved to the Notes field.
Old Hungarian: Szarvas inscription should be removed, as it is only a fringe theory. Thai: The Wiki article of the memorial contradicts with the info written into the Notes field. That comment should be also removed. 149.200.81.196 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Thai note doesn’t seem to contradict the article. Kanguole 10:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer! Sorry for the amount of quotes, but they are required to prove my point. The current article says it is original and it has been the consensus for the past 30 years.: “[..] This debate still has not been definitively settled, but subsequent electron microscopy has suggested that the stele is likely to be as old as originally claimed, and the majority of academics in the field today regard it as at least partly authentic. [..] a 1990 analysis using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy found the Ram Khamhaeng stele to be the same age (700–500 years) as four other Sukhothai inscriptions, several proponents remain convinced of the forgery theory, and the debate has not been definitively settled.”

The cited source (MSEA epigraphy) is not available for free, so I couldn’t check it. Maybe it also refers to debates from that time and not to current ones.

There are 2 sources cited in that Wiki article: a) Intellectual might and national myth : a forensic investigation of the Ram Khamhaeng controversy in Thai society. – Couldn’t get access, but the title is very talkative b) Using Ockham’s Razor with respect to the Ram Khamhaeng Controversy – it is a short and formal summary rather than a scientific paper, and its short conclusion is “The remarkable duration of the debate [..] the chief proponents of the hypothesis that we were dealing with a recent fake remain

passionately attached to their hypothesis. [..] Vickery, Piriya, Chamberlain, Nidhi, and Michael Wright are very distinct

people with distinct skills [..] Indeed, it would have been the éclat of

the century if they had been able to find a single piece of evidence establishing without

doubt that we were dealing with a modern text and at various stages of the debate it

would appear that they had found something conclusive. [..]”

In overall, either that Wiki article is biased or simply that comment in the Notes field is misleading. 2001:4C4E:1E92:5D00:A1F9:E9FE:B2DE:B7FC (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have access to the first source, and I think your assessment based on the title is accurate: it seems primarily concerned with the politics, including academic politics, though it does go into some of the evidence.

Sidwell and Jenny (2021) discuss arguments for both sides, and conclude “The controversy has never been definitely settled, both sides having good arguments for their respective point [of] view”. Kanguole 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In 1525 the first printed works in Latvian and Estonian languages were being carried to Rīga – Lutheran texts intended for Livonia. News about the fate of these publications is scant. The shipment did not reach Rīga, because the books were seized in Lübeck by the pro-Catholic city council. The Duke of Lübeck, Johannes Brandes, wrote in his diary that the council confiscated barrels of Lutheran books, among them were also printed texts in Estonian, Latvian and vernacular Livonian. The council wanted to burn the books in the market square. Although these books in Latvian did not reach their readers (listeners), and later could not be found in the already established Rīga city library (1524), fire did not stop the dissemination of words. Word written in Latvian were born, grew further and spread in a variety of ways. 46.109.119.199 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

500 years of printed books in Latvian

You haven’t said what edit you want made to the page. Note that this list is of the oldest extant texts in each language. Kanguole 18:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the constructed language Simlish from 1996? ~2025-33912-88 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irish is dated to the Wurzburg glosses of the 8th century, with the note “Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions from the 4th century consist of personal names, patronymics and/or clan names.[108][109].”

But some are sentences. CIIC 38 says CORBI KOI MAQI LABRID, “Here is Corb, son of Labraid”. others say things like “Here is Mac-Iair, son of the Corcu Duibne,” or “here is Laminacca’s champion, son of the Corcu Duibne.” These are short inscriptions but are sentences, I would think. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]