Talk:Japonic languages

message: User:Cibeckwith claims that Japonic languages is a disputed term an proposes Japanese-Ryukyuan languages instead. I have during my academic career never stumbled upon the latter term and it seems IMHO quite unwieldy. Could an expert on this subject please clear up the confusion? --Himasaram 08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, User:Cibeckwith is an expert on this subject. Please correspond with him personally if you have any dissatisfaction with the nomenclature. For the time being, I am going to remove the unsightly "attention needed" template from the main page, because this article is actually very accurate as it stands, although it is rather bare-boned. Ebizur 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are used. I personally prefer Japonic because it is shorter. It seems better to choose less node-based names for language families in case the classification is reorganized in the future or if varieties that were previously regarded as smaller subnodes are moved up to a higher position, the name is still relevant. --Node 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The language ofthe Finns is related to Japanese last I heard.Tourskin 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is pseudoscientific nonsense. Please see Pseudoscientific language comparison.--AAikio 08:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the edgy comment, didn't take it as an insult... It's just that there are a lot of wild theories of the origin of Japanese around, and in general most of them are not really worth taking into account in a linguistic article. --AAikio 06:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ural-Altaic languages, a controversial theory. If valid, the languages are very distantly related, probably comparable to English' relationship to Sanskrit or Hittite, or even further. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people doing historical linguistics like to go for super-groupings. In which case it's possible for Finnish to be linked to Japanese. Probably of not much significance to most people. Some people say well it makes, for example, Japanese easier to learn for Finns. But obviously more Finns have learned English than Japanese. So again, not sure just how significant any of that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.240 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish 

message: Hi guys,
I'm wondering if this is true; I heard that one of the Japonic, I think it's a Ryukuan langauge, which uses consonants other than /n/ in coda.  I could've swore I read it in Wikipedia before.  Could someone verify this for me? I think it's one of the smaller ones, but finding out if this is true or if I dreamt it would be really useful.   I posted this on the category section by mistake, so I've put the same question here hoping it'll get more hits.  InnocentOdion 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Miyako language of the Miyako Island group and some dialects spoken in the area of Kagoshima Prefecture on Kyushu allow consonants other than /N/ in the coda of a syllable. Ebizur (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern Japanese, one way of treating the so-called 'doubled consonants' would be in part as a syllable coda. Like, 'yap-pa-ri'. The first [p] being some form of glottal stop consonant (partial closure of the glottis with labialization at the other end of the vocal tract). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.240 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanoic/Ryukuan language with consonants in coda?

message: Some one can talk about it...why Ainu languages not expressely mentioned.
Ainu languages, Ainu people, this people is native in Japan, the true Japanese.
Marcio Benvenuto de Lima (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. They are not Japonic. — kwami (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Ainu languages? 

message: We have an ongoing edit war across several articles re. Japonic classification, with editors who won't bother to discuss their edits. Both editors are wrong in some respects. Japonic is often identified as Altaic by Altaicists. In fact, I've heard (though don't know myself) that most Altaicists accept Japanese, which would imply that the inclusion of Japanese is only somewhat more uncertain than the validity of Altaic as a whole. However, Japonic has not been demonstrated to be Altaic, and such classifications clearly remain controversial. On the other hand, it clearly is not an isolate: language isolates are languages; as soon as you have a family, you no longer have an isolate. I mean, we wouldn't say that Indo-European is "a language isolate (or possibly related to Uralic)". It is only considered an isolate when treated as a single language. Japanese generally was considered an isolate half a century ago (and AFAIK the Altaic theory is still a minority POV), but recent classifications have generally treated it as a small Japonic family. 
Can we actually discuss these changes? The alternatives are that I edit-protect all the articles you are reverting each other on, which may mean that I protect them at a version that you disagree with, or that I block the both of you for disruption. (On further investigation, I might block only one of you, but don't count on it.) kwami (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  classification 

message: I've indefinitely protected the following articles which are involved in this pathetic edit war: Japonic languages, Japanese people, Altaic languages, and Classification of Japanese. Other articles may be added to this list as well if this edit warring does not stop. Please discuss whatever issues you may have and come to some sort of consensus. Once you have done so, we can look at making the article editable again. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: link broken, here's the right one: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1721-16
--Sigmundur (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection has not been removed as there has been no discussion as far as I can tell. However, I have updated the link as requested. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The protection on this page is inhibiting constructive editing. It's been over 5 months. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. I have no part in this edit war. -ZacBowling (user|talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove protection and fix link! 

message: These dialects are classified in Satsugū dialect(:ja:薩隅方言), not in Amami language(:ja:奄美方言).
安室黎 (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanegashima and Yakushima dialects

message: The classification of the Japonic languages (and Korean) as Altaic languages is hardly an accepted matter.  A tiny footnote about "Not always recognized as Altaic languages" is hardly NPOV when most linguists reject this classification and many reject even the existence of an Altaic language family.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.220.149 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This again? I thought this had been put to bed a long time ago.  Taivo - are you out there?  I hereby grant you a permit from the United Nations to keeel this on the spot, whenever it occurs!  :-) Seriously, Whisper, even I as a historian have seen the (RS) statements that the majority of linguists reject the Altaic hypothesis for Japanese, or Korean for that matter. Incredible how this just keeps sprouting back up on Wiki articles like a weed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The complaint seems to have nothing to do with the article. — kwami (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification as an Altaic language  

message: How come that Korean language is listed as isolate, while Japonic languages are listed as Altaic, at least colour wise? Is that NPOV? The common view is that there are not conclusive evidence of genealogical relations between Japanese and Korean, let alone Japanese and classic Altaic languages: that's the equivalent of isolate (=unknown family relation) until better proofs are found. Moreover, prominent Korean language experts, even sympathetic toward the Altaic theory like Ki-Moon Lee (2011), have not yet found conclusive proves of genealogical links between Japanese and Korean and they are still very much open to the debate. The Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World edited by Elseviere (2006) considers Japanese as an isolated language, as well as Korean. 84.222.239.177 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's due to people editing one article but not the other. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an edit war between mules, to say the truth... – 84.222.239.177 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification yet again 

message: The coloring for Altaic in the infobox is highly problematic.  The Japonic languages are nearly universally rejected as being "Altaic".  Should the infobox be colored "Altaic" or "Language isolate"?  --Taivo (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Luxure Σ 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia doesn't add questionable information with "(?)" after it, anywhere, ever.  If you ever see someone do that in an article, you should remove it immediately, per WP:Verifiability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language isolate

message: In the Infoboxes for Turkic languages, Mongolic languages, Tungusic languages, Japonic languages, and Koreanic languages and most, if not all, of their daughters, assigning the color "Altaic (areal)" to the infobox automatically fills in the text "Altaic ?" in the "family" line of the classification at the top node unless it is specifically overridden by inserting another value into the "family" slot.  This should be eliminated since Altaic has been generally discredited among historical linguists and only a small minority of linguists still cling to it.  --Taivo (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the best forum for that centralized discussion?  --Taivo (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Altaic languages would be the most obvious, but maybe on the WP:lang talk page.  — kwami (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Luxure Σ 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

text: "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.  (And that was the first book I picked up off my shelf to locate a relevant quote.)  --Taivo (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me; truth be told, I commented before I realized that the RfC bots had once again directed me to a stale discussion and that this issue had already been more or less unanimously decided through the related discussion at WP:WikiProject Languages.  But I appreciate the response all the same.  Lyle Campbell -- now there's a name I haven't heard in a good long while! Snow talk 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Japaneese Wiki made it Altaic (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E) Must be mentioned, at least.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Japenese wiki is not a reliable source for English Wiki.  It is mentioned--in the text where it belongs.  I doesn't belong in the infobox.  --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Altaic ?" in the Infobox? 

message: I'm curious if anyone has any more information about the table there.
* The symbols used are opaque to most readers.  This is a basic usability problem.  Even if a user wanted to learn what the symbols mean, there's no obvious way to find out.
: → Could someone either add an explanatory paragraph, or a link to a page that explains these?
* A number of the items listed are problematic.
** cold | *sàmù- -- There is a cluster of "cold"-related terms that all start with sam-, indicating that the final ù in the reconstruction is probably some kind of grammatical ending, and is thus inappropriate for a root form.
** give | *ata[-]pa-Ci -- Presumably this is postulated based on modern verb ataeru, ancient form atapu.  This is generally derived from root ata in the Japanese materials I have to hand.  If that equates to the initial ata- in the reconstruction, what is the final pa-Ci supposed to be?
** louse | *sìrámí -- Likely a compound of sira ("white") + mi (uncertain, possibly "body").  See also nomi ("flea"), containing that same mi element.
** warm | *àta-taka- -- The root appears to be atata, not ata + taka.  See related ancient verb atatamu (whence modern atatameru, atatamaru), recognized adjective-forming suffix -ka (as in shizuka, komaka, oroka, etc.).
Thanks in advance,  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstructions in the [[Japonic_languages#Proto-Japonic]] section 

message: We could sum up the content, as mostly everything is repeated in the main article "Classification of Japonic languages". What do other editors think about that?--AsadalEditor (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reduce the amount, if someone disagree, feel free to revert my edit.--AsadalEditor (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification section to much 

message: I have reverted the assertion of four branches, whose definiteness goes beyond the scholarly consensus:
* The position of Hachijō is described as "a matter of speculation" (Shibatani) and "unclear and deserves more investigation" (Pellard).
* The proposed evidence for extinct Japonic languages in Korea is fragmentary and cannot be said to be "universally accepted" (as the relationship between Japanese and Ryukyuan is), though quite a few scholars consider it plausible.
None of the sources talk about four branches.  Kanguole 00:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . Apart from Vovin being a participant in the ongoing debate, his statement is in itself contradictory: if a proposal is rejected "by the majority of scholars in both South and North Korea", its acceptance can't be called "universal". The "Oxford Research Encyclopedia" has a concept that differs from WP. By inviting leading scholars to contribute, the former accepts the risk of biased articles, or as we call it here, "POV-pushing". –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branches 

message: An IP editor appears to be concerned that the lead claims that Japanese is related to Korean.  It does not claim that.  Rather it says
Possible genetic relationships with many other language families have been proposed, most systematically with Korean, but none have been conclusively demonstrated.
All three parts of this statement are amply supported in the article body, but note the conclusion: 
The other statement summarizes the separate issue of evidence for Japonic on the peninsula in ancient times:
There is also some fragmentary evidence suggesting that Japonic languages may once have been spoken in central and southern parts of the Korean peninsula.
This does not claim that such presence is generally accepted: words like  and  convey the lack of certainty.  But it is considered likely by a significant number of scholars, and this is well supported in the article body.  Kanguole 22:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions from the lead 

message: There are some problems with the recently added material and references:
* Chaubey and van Driem (2020) advances the theory that the Yayoi were para-Austroasiatic, but switched to the Japonic language of the Jōmon. As far as I've seen, van Driem is the only one advancing this idea (based on the distribution of Haplogroup O-P31). The Miller theory mentioned is rather different, and is obsolete.
* Elmer (2019) is an MA thesis, so not a suitable source, but it doesn't seem to say what has been ascribed to it. The idea that Tōhoku was once Ainu-speaking is widely accepted, but the mechanics of typological influence is another matter.
* The quote from Yurayong and Szeto (2020) is not quite accurate: the original is "our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages". This doesn't seem to mean much more than "non-Altaic".
Kanguole 20:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reverted the addition of Chaubey and van Driem (2020). Neither of them have worked on Japonic languages: Chaubey is a geneticist and van Driem specializes in Himalayan languages. They rely on Miller (1971) for the theory that the Jōmon spoke Japonic, and that obsolete theory is already covered. Kanguole 11:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material on Jōmon, typology 

message: Including the tree from Glottolog seems hard to justify. The authors haven't worked on Japonic, but have somehow synthesized a classification from other works. As with most of their pages, they give a list of references, but no detail on how they were used. In this case, Pellard's thesis is cited for the subclassification, but it doesn't match the given tree: the algorithmically-generated phylogenetic trees on pp273–276 all have a bifurcate branching, with Hachijo grouped with Japanese. Tsugaru and Old Japanese aren't mentioned. Kanguole 09:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glottolog classification 

message: The idea of a "Japanesic" branch seems to be a particular creation of Glottolog, who have done no work on Japonic languages, and does not appear elsewhere in the literature. Adding it to the infobox seems to be undue weight, and does not reflect the article. (Not to mention that the name is a hideous creation.) Kanguole 04:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although the hypothesis that the Kagoshima and Tsugaru dialects are divergent enough to be considered distinct languages from the rest of Japanese is worth a brief mention in the Japanese dialects article, I don't think it's worth putting "Japanesic" in the infobox. As you said, the name is not frequently used in Japonic linguistics and it's essentially synonymous with Japanese anyway, even if it's split into multiple languages based on mutual intelligibility. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also note that Glottolog's splitting of Kagoshima and Tsugaru into separate languages within their database does not constitute a dispute of their subclassification within the broader Kyūshū or Tōhoku dialect groups respectively. They are displayed outside of those groups in the database as of now as, due to the limitations of their website's UI, divergent dialects cannot be listed as both distinct languages and as parts of a larger dialect group in which the other dialects are considered part of the main language. I asked about this on the project's GitHub page a while ago and one of the authors clarified this and said there were no plans to change it, which is unfortunate. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanesic?