Talk:Rangpuri language

message: Oppose: This page should be merged not with Goalpariya dialect but with Kamatapuri lects.  Goalpariya dialect covers the eastern regional dialects of the Rangpuri language that are spoken within Assam.  Chaipau (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: , specifically where are these terms mentioned in the source? I have checked all the pdfs included in that link and found nothing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: the divisions are given in tree shown in page 140 of Chatterji very clearly.  The Kamarupa Dialects (Kamarupic here) is divided in Eastern and Western (Eastern and Western Kamarupic).  Rangpur is placed under under Western.  Toulmin 2006 reproduces this tree in his thesis and follows the same divisions.  Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamarupic/Western Kamarupic 

message: :  I agree that the name is a problem.  We should move it to either Rajbangsi language (from Masica, which I prefer and which redirects to this article) or Rajbangshi language.  We could make a request or if we have a consensus, we could do it WP:BOLD and see what happens. Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should stay as Rangpuri and be treated as a dialect of Bengali language used in northwestern Bangladesh. A separate article could be created on Rajbangshi language as the two seem to be different languages based on the discussion above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Ethnologue clearly says Rajbangshi and Rangpuri are alternative names :-) Chaipau (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnologue lists Rajbanshi as a separate language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But this citation, you have yourself inserted says otherwise: .  It says:   It seems your POV is going against your own citations! Picking and choosing references is a sure sign of POV pushing! Chaipau (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Rajbongshis, especially those of India, identify as Rongpuri speakers and vice versa. Sticking to one article will be problematic, so it is better that Rangpuri has its own article. Rajbongshi can be merged with KRNB lects, since the R in KRNB stands for Rajbongshi and is therefore representative of it in the first place. This issue is very similar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian situation. UserNumber (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same actually also holds for Rangpuri, as it is also part of the KRNB lects even though it is not "represented" in the acronym. The main problem stems from the fact which you have mentioned above. Many lects are divided into speaker groups which identify with different ethnicities and standard languages. A lazy and shallow solution would be to imitate the ISO-demarcations, but this would a step back given that fact that Toulmin's book provides a much deeper insight into the linguistic network of the Bengali-Assamese languages. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with user:Austronesier.  Masica 1991 too says the same thing: "Thus the Rajbangsi dialect of the Rangpur District (Bangladesh), and the adjacent Indian Districts of Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar..."  Linguistically Rangpuri is a variety of Rajbangsi. Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: , the problem arises with the article Bengali-Assamese script, as long as this page keeps having this erroneous title some users will keep trying to push this POV by adding unsourced material or misrepresenting the sources. The best solution is to rename the article to Bengali script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Exactly, ethnicity doesn't matter in linguistics, that's why we should follow what most sources say, describing the writing system as "Bengali script". Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity is important so far as it determines diglossia. On p. 239ff. we can see that the language of formal communication did have an impact on each vernacular, to the extent that e.g. the Rangpuri lect adopted certain features from Standard Bengali, viz. features which are absent from other KRNB lects that do not have Bengali as Dachsprache. –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I think we have consensus (minus Za-ari-masen) that Rajbangsi is the name of the language, while "Rangpuri" or "Bahe" is the variety in Rangpur, Bangladesh.   Chaipau (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  Why are you so obsessed with imposing Bengali? Don't you understand that choosing this name is so chaotic and unfair? What's wrong with "Bengali-Assamese", it's used in this source and many other sources. It should not matter which term is the most common. We should use a neutral term. Msasag (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaipau is disruptively trying to ignore the opposing view suggested by me and UserNumber and he says I'm POV-pushing while Msasag is simply turning this talk page into forum chat Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: You have given many false statements. Don't know if you just didn't notice or you want to ignore. Msasag (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  are you saying the statement that the script is commonly known as "Bengali script" is false? Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. That's not the only thing going on here. I'm tired of your ignorance. But let me tell you that you said Toulmin considered Rangpuri and Rajbanshi as separate languages and that he didn't mention Rangpuri and this is obviously false. You also accused me of breaking 3RR and it's false too. You said in page 103, "Bengali-Assamese script" isn't mentioned and it's false too etc. I'm tired of you. Msasag (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only instance when I was mistaken was assuming Toulmin didn't mention Rangpuri because I was looking in chapter 3 which you earlier cited where there was no mention of Rangpuri language. I stood corrected when  explained about the earlier chapter. The source is not too explicit either and you have to connect a lot of dots to suggest Rangpuri language uses "Bengali-Assamese script". In contrast, Ethnologue is very clear and specific. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ethnologue is clear, specific and entirely wrong.  Also it agrees with your POV, even though it is not WP:RS.  Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: , don't remove sourced content from the article. Since we have two sources that describes the script as Bengali and Bengali-Asamiya, I've kept both, although Ethnologue is more credible and specific between the two. And for the article title, start an RM if you have enough rationale. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bengali alphabet is a part of Bengali-Assamese script, so there's no need to mention it separately. Just because there are sources you cannot add different types of datas. Calm down.  Msasag (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the language 

message: Finally got around to converting the Toulmin 2006 to Toulmin 2009.  Also, came across this in Toulmin 2009: [].  So the standardization (printing) seems to be happening at two different points.  The Jhapa based effort is probably in the Devanagari script (Rajbanshi language (Nepal)) and the Cooch Behar effort seems to be in the Bengali-Assamese script.  I am still trying to find a solid reference for the Cooch Behar based one.  The best lead seems to be Toulmin in the Russian edition.  Chaipau (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break "Standardizing languages"

message: I would request everyone to change it into "Kamta Language" Ayutthaprabal (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the discussion in above this section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  To change the name of the mentioned page