Talk:Austroasiatic languages

message: There are several words of Mundari language in Pakistani languages like Urdu 'Siraiki'Punjabi and Sindhi .Whether these tribes were first inhaitants of Indus valley?.
:People have argued that eastern Nepal was originally Mundari speaking, but I have never heard such suggestions for the Indus. No one knows what language or languages the Harappans spoke, though some have claimed that they were Dravidian (Asko Parpola for example) based on supposed translations of the Harappan script. kwami 09:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why is Viet-Muong included in the box at right but not mentioned at all in the article? Badagnani 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Cos it is in fact Vietic languages now. Second it souldn't be in the infobox anyway, I've fixed. --Koryakov Yuri 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viet-Muong 

message: Does anyone know what's spoken there?  I have another map on paper that has the same gap there and it is similarly left unexplained.  Haplolology Talk/Contributions 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick glance at the map, I believe that area is inhabited by various speakers of Hmong languages, Malay-type language, and possibly some languages of the Thai/Lao family.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: After looking at the map again, that area probably has more Cham/Jarai Malay languages and the Tai-Kadai language Tai Dum (speakers of which have migrated south) and less Hmong/Iu-Mien speakers.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for a very rapid and helpful response.  I actually didn't think anyone was gonna know the answer.  Haplolology Talk/Contributions 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's that big white space in southern Vietnam? 

message: Can someone address how a tonal language (Vietnamese) came to be in the same family as a non-tonal language (Khmer)?
64.134.101.84 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered either at Vietnamese or at Vietic languages.  — kwami (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonal vs. non-Tonal 

message: The subdivisions are collapsed according to Sidwell's classification scheme. Has this been widely accepted in austroasiatic studies?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.165.226 (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? There is no justification needed to use established, uncontroversial small groupings such as Vietic or Aslian for these purposes. Note that Sidwell has suggested Khasi-Palaungic, which isn't generally used in the article, so it doesn't have any bias towards Sidwell's scheme in particular. It just so happens that his scheme, by proposing almost no (necessarily controversial) higher-level groupings, is inherently what a NPOV portrayal will prefer. When in doubt, we will naturally tend towards the "splitter" framework and assume that languages are not (closely) related. And for comparing subgrouping hypotheses, it is simply convenient to stick to uncontroversial low-level groups and show how the different proposals link them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Classifications? 

message: I've moved the following part here:
:Genetic studies of representatives from all branches of Austroasiatic indicate the ancestors of Austroasiatic speakers originated in present-day India and migrated into Southeast Asia from the Brahmaputra River Valley.2007. Reddy, Battini M., et al. "Y-chromosome evidence suggests a common paternal heritage of Austro-Asiatic populations". BMC Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7:47
The question of the geographic origin of the Austroasiatic languages is different from the question of the geographic origin of their speakers. For all I know, the migration in question could have been far earlier and even part of the original peopling of South-East Asia. Genetic evidence is simply irrelevant as long as a connection between people/genes and language cannot be made even remotely plausible.
Just in case you need an analogy: If genetic studies reveal an origin of Mexicans in Northeast Asia that doesn't mean that Mexican Spanish originates there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also check this competing analysis, which comes to the exactly opposite conclusion, to see that the genetic evidence is far less clear-cut and far more ambiguous than implied by the passage in question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Austroasiatic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6H8pdR68H?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsealang.net%2Fsala%2Farchives%2Fpdf8%2Fsidwell2006dating.pdf to http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/sidwell2006dating.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How many Wikipedia in this languages?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Four: Vietnamese, Khmer, Mon, and Santali. Lingnanhua (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: The article begins: "The Austroasiatic languages, also known as Mon–Khmer, are a large language family..."
However, this is not correct, as the article shows further down at Austroasiatic languages#Internal classification. The Mon-Khmer languages are the main branch of Austroasiatic, the other one being the Munda languages of India. This needs correction. Best, --Curryfranke (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mon-Khmer is only a part of Austroasiatic 

message: Area all Austroasiatic languages considered as sheduled tribes in India? 95.82.66.125 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All AA speakers in India belong to tribal groups and most, if not all, are categorised as Scheduled Tribes by the government and are eligible for said benefits under reservation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any Austroasiatic peoples that are not sheduled tribes? Kaiyr (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe all of the major AA tribes have been categorised. Though it is possible that small obscure groups are still non-scheduled tribes. Note that Wikipedia is not a forum, regarding the scope of this discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheduled tribes in India