Talk:Moksha language

message: Unless I see some actual source for this script, I am going to delete the section DGG (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this information needs a clear citation, with at least an ISBN or something so that it can be verified that it exists. Mo-Al (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also I believe the names should be in Cyrillic rather than transliteration, otherwise it is difficult to search for the source. Mo-Al (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to provide ISBN for 100 y older sources. I guess, if European scientists didn't have opportunity to study old Volga Finnish script it doesn't mean this script never existed--Khazar II (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Logographic script

message: These reconstructed words have become now in light of this early common language spoked by all Finno Urgrians c. 3700 BC also in the Rava / Rav bend area as well as in Finland and Estonia.
*pexli = edge, ippi = father in law, ina / inajppi = mother in law, toli = come. weti = water, witti / wixti / witi = five, kanta = to bear, käktä = two, juka = river, pithkä = long, putci = pipe, sala = secret, jingsi = bow, kaxsi = spruce, miksa = pay, poskij = cheek, silmä = eye, moski = wash, cecä = uncle, meni = to go, ämä / emä = mother, tumti = feel, jänti = string, nixli = arrow, nüthi = stem, thümä = glue, katha = dissapear, lomi = snow, käxli = tongue / langue, kunili = tear, wengiw / wängiw = son-in-law, päjwä = sun / day / warm, pithiwti = lenght / height, kaja = sun.
Here are only few of about 150 words which are know. Source: Tapani Lehtinen: Kielen vuosituhannet 2007. The earliest Indo-Iranian loan words appeared 1000 years later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proto Uralian (Uralic) Language and its variant developing later to Moksha Dialect Language

message: You destroyed at ones the work to expand the history of Moksha language history even before I had finished it. Four hours work based to reliable Finnish and other reliable academic sources including also Marija Gimbutas and Mallory. Four hours work for magpies. Strange policy in English Wikipedia. Human is not god decising what can be published in Discussion page of main article. This is angry and bitter comment against those who think they know everything.
Too sensitive matter for some people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks Jimmy Holmes

message: There is inconsistency between the graphic of the 1930's alphabet and the text. The graphic shows the 3rd and 4th letters as c and з while the text has c and ç. In other Uralic 1930's Latin orthographies, c represents /ts/, ç is /tɕ/ or /tsʲ/, and з is /dʒ/. Judging from Moksha phonology, I would assume that the correct symbols are c and ç, but it is possible that the proposed Latin Alphabet for Moksha had some unique characteristics. The other Uralic 1930's orthographies also use a subscript diacritic to indicate palatalization. From the descriptions here and on the Russian page, it appears that neither Moksha nor Erzya used such a diacritic, and I'd have to assume that something like j was used instead. Could someone please let me know if what I've described is accurate? languagegeek (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1930's Proposed Latin Alphabet

message: Е е	[je], [д]
	Э э	[e], [д]
	Я я	[ja], [д]
д?! That looks like de (Cyrillic) on my screen, maybe it looks like something else to you? —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not IPA, so shouldn't be there. I removed these from the sounds column. --JorisvS (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexpected letters 

message: DGG,
I'm an expert in writing systems and I have a suspicion that the Moksha Script is a hoax.  I can read and transliterate Russian so I might actually try to look up said "sources".  However, I just want you to know that I think it's a hoax.  I've never heard of it before and it's a significantclaim.
To elaborate, it's not in Peter Daniel's Writing Systems of the World.  Neither does it appear anywhere else on the internet.  More telling is that it sounds unlikely.  You see, in the past few years I've only come across a few scripts I never read about before, Alaska Script and Carolines Script, and both of these are probably contact syallbaries like Cherokee or even Rongo-Rongo.  But a hieroglyphic writing system like this would definitely appear somewhere in the books.  
What's more, its presentation appears fake.  No writing system known has 3,000 glyphs.  Maybe 3,000 glyph-combinations (Chinese), but not glyphs.  And non-Chinese writng systems don't organize glyph-combinations so simply as to make 3,000 distinct combinations.  The way the glyphs are presented looks fake.  The phonetic values would be C, V, CV, or CVC.  But all that is given is whole words, as if the hoax-maker doesn't really understand how hieroglyphic writing systems work.
Furthermore, the glyphs look fake.  Glyphs only look pictoral if employed on monuments or very near their creation.  Soon after, like Egyptian, Chinese, Sumerian, they decay to abstract scribbles.
What they're proposing is like the Yi Script (southern China).  But the Yi Script hasn't been pictoral since it was first invented, thousands to hundreds of years ago.  And the Yi Script is a derivation of Chinese.  What would Moksha be a derivation of?  Egyptian or Hittite Hieroglyphic.  So then, where's the empire?  Archaeologically, Mordovia was barbaric during that time frame.  Empires, even kingdoms, leave behind tell-tale evidence of existence, the world over.
The hoax wouldn't be a big deal because the learned could see through it.  But these people are being rascals disrespectful of history and people's eagerness to trust Wikipedia.
Blissglyphs (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no linguist. but I'd consider the symbols in the figure  not   pictorial but the sort of abstractions that seems characteristic of invented languages. The  word choice in that figure looks highly unlikely to me, as well. there's a nice little book In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent  (including a good chapter on Chinese).   DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this suspicions also apply to the numeral system discussed at Mokshan numeric system#Eurasian prehistory? Fences&Windows 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moksha Hieroglyphic Script is a Hoax 

message: According to the 2010 All-Russian census there were nearly 750,000 Mordvins, i.e. Erzyas and Mokshas, in Russia. For some reason it has been common practice to say that there are two Erzyas for every one Moksha. This practice stems from the result of the 1926 census, in which there was an official interest in finding the actual number of Erzyas and Mokshas. Since then Official counts have not been made distinguishing actual numbers of Erzyas and Mokshas. Since half a million is twice the number of what one might expect (250,000), the number of Mokshas indicated on this page struck me as peculiar. There are no real officially documented facts in favor or opposing this claim. It is only theoretical practice that would state the number of Moksha speakers is double of what is expected. Rueter (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've referenced the number. I don't really get your objection. We don't go by gut feelings, but by sources. --JorisvS (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he has a point. Ethnologue's 614K in '02 is indeed the total number of Mordvinic speakers, as you can check from the primary census results (see links eg. via Demographics of Russia). Thus, not a reliable number, seems like. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, they list the same figure under Erzya, and then give another 'in all countries' figure. Can we find something reliable? --JorisvS (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Moksha speakers

message: If the machine translation of the site  gives the correct impression, the source says that compulsory study of Moksha as part of the curriculum is illegal, which something very different from what the sentence "Since 2010 teaching of Moksha language in schools is illegal" means. --JorisvS (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, JorisvS, there is the word compulsory in the text. In fact that is an assimilation policy word play - "this thing is not banned but just not allowed". Excluding the language compulsory study as part of the curriculum is still nothing but excluding. It's much easier to find reasons why not teaching on voluntary basis. Is it compulsory for children to study their mother language in schools as a subject (using Moksha as the language of instruction in schools banned since 1938)? 100% population in Moksha areas are Moksha speaking. Is it important for them using their first language?  Never seen legal documents with phrases like 'yes, we officially ban here using some language as a part of our assimilation policy'.--Numulunj pilgae 05:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We can discuss whether it is a good thing that in a natively Moksha-speaking area people are not obliged to learn Moksha (I think it is not), but that's a very different issue. If teaching and learning Moksha is allowed on a voluntary basis, even if only allowed on a voluntary basis, that means that teaching Moksha is not illegal. At Wikipedia we must report the facts straightforwardly and without interspersing it with our opinions. --JorisvS (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree 'not allowed' not always = 'illegal' but to be precise we need to pay attention to the Prosecutor's office source comments. "Compulsory study of Mordvinian language (in Russia they use this term Mordvinian language instead Mokshan and Erzyan in spite of the fact Mordvinian language never existed) in schools is illegal and violates constitutional rights of the young persons (under age 18 in Russian Federation) for free choice of the language of communication, education, training and creative work". What kind of choice is it? It needs at least 2 options to make a choice. Why Moksha speaking child may not choose his  own language even as a subject in school? Because teaching this language is illegal. Why illegal? The Prosecutor's office explaines why compulsory study is illegal, that is Russian Federation 'Education Law' Article 50, para 4 "all persons under age 18 have the right to study in accordance with federal state educational standarts" which of course are in Russian. According to the source "Kochkurovo school principal and all other school principals in the same rayon were warned". If I were a school principal wishing to continue teaching Moksha or Erzya language to children at least as a subject (it's clear that schools cannot provide full study on voluntary basis after classes) I had to prove there is some sufficient number of volunteers, collect all their parents confirmations etc. Does the school principal take a risk? Of course. In case of second Prosecutor's warning this person can be charged to penalty payments or inprisonment. So, to be on the safe side the principals have to stop teaching this language at all. According to UNESCO information in cases when a language is not used in such areas as media, schools, employment it means this language future is in danger. Today there is 1 newspaper and 1 magazine in Moksha (there were at least 18 in 1930s in Moksha and Erzya) and only the newspaper has opportunity to offer subscription and web version. Using this language in employment is not allowed too. Moksha language is marked as 'definitely endangered' according to UNESCO classification . Where you can use it? Speak it at home. That is the meaning of 'not allowed' in this case. --Numulunj pilgae (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post is rather long, and though I may well agree with you, I get the impression that your aim is beyond what is said in the source, which would make anything inspired by that likely to be at least original research and maybe, if we combine it with what other sources say, synthesis. --JorisvS (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, I made it long in order to comment the situation. I could use only one sentence like According to the Prosecutor's office information officials defend the right of Russian and Moksha speaking children to study and communicate only in Russian. That is what literally said. Doesn't it sound absurd? If adding UNESCO information it is clear that officials prevent any efforts to save the endangered language. My language is dying in spite of that fact one can read in Russian sources that this is one of the offcial languages in Mordovia. That was my aim: to show a skeleton in the wardrobe while according to the official information it is considered a living person. So, no synthesis or original researches, only facts.--Numulunj pilgae (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it sounds quite absurd. And it is very bad that Moksha is under such pressure from Russian! Nevertheless, if there is no reliable source saying what you are saying, we cannot include it in the article, because that would make it original research (OR), however true it may be. If there is a reliable source that says it, it is a simple matter of using that. --JorisvS (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. I guess we can solve this by adding more information on bans and repressions in Moksha language history. Many information can be found in the source I. T. Kreindler, "The Mordvinians: A doomed Soviet nationality?" and in Moksha and Russian sources. I will add 'History' part like it is made in Lithuanian language etc. --Numulunj pilgae (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and when adding a piece of information, just make sure you're true to the source without literally copying it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching Moksha 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moksha language. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150612231806/http://filfak.mrsu.ru/index.php/template1/pages7 to http://filfak.mrsu.ru/index.php/template1/pages7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The schwa sound is close to the Estonian õ, so õ is a good way to transcribe it, even in later syllables where it is an allophone of o. The soft schwa is an allophone of e. The hard allophone of i does not occur in any Uralic language using the Latin alphabet, but is transliterated from Russian as y. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:A0FB:3F9C:5928:6DA2 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowels y and õ