Talk:Suret language

message: I've had to revert this article a number of times because of edits made from a political standpoint. This is an article about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, not any other language. This is the Neo-Aramaic of Christians (mostly Church of the East) originally from Urmia and eastern Turkey. The language is heavily influenced by Classical Syriac, which is the language of liturgy and some literature in the Church of the East. This article is not supposed to refer to all Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken by Christians and the classical language but just to this distinct group of modern dialects. These dialects are most often represented by General Urmian and the Iraqi Koine. The editor who has been reverting my changes is openly writing from an Assyrian nationalist point of view, which is fine as long as it does not interfere with the overall neutrality of the article. One simple and clear measure of this is the convention that infoboxes for Afro-Asiatic languages are yellow in colour. This editor keeps turning the box white for some reason. Unless the editor can give some rational defence for their actions, they should be persuaded to stop turning articles into their little soapbox. Gareth Hughes 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Well i am an Assyrian and I know who and who does not speak my language..We assyrians nowadays stand wihtout a country and we are 90 of 100% nationalists..We are about 4-4.5million assyrian speakers and you were writing we were about 210.000 whis is a lie..There are 3 modern Assyrian (Aramean) dialects..Chaldean influed with more arabian words..Suryoyo spoken by the west Assyrians but they refer to call themselves syriacs nowadays and the original Assyrian people which are we..
You made our Assyrian language look like its all Aramean..Dont forget only our church language is Aramean (Assyrian) call it whatever you want but we Assyrians call it Assyrian so I wont accept that strangers from another nation will destroy that for our little and dieing nation..Assyrian neo aramaic it shouldnt be called that..Its only called Assyrian Neo Aramaic on the internet because no Assyrian doesnt know what that is...We know what we talk and what we are fighting for..So please dont edit my changes Garzo..Kind Regards / Youhanna Warda.. Assyria 90 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Youhanna, thank you for writing, and for introducing yourself. I am a student of Aramaic, and have just returned from a language field trip in eastern Turkey. I have great sympathy for the cause Aramaic-speaking Christians throughout the area. I know some call themselves Suryoye and others Assyrian, but are very much in similar situations. I have heard plenty of firsthand evidence of Saypa/Sayfo to know what horrors were committed against the people. However, I do have a problem with the politicization of linguistic and historic facts. Assyrian nationalists are actually doing their cause a disservice through such actions: no-one is taking the heartfelt rhetoric seriously, and there are issues to be taken seriously here. There is a distinct difference between the liturgical language of the Church of the East and the colloquial language that used to be spoken in the broad area from Mosul to Urmia. Accurate evidence, from linguists working in the field, is that there are around 210,000 fluent speakers of the colloquial language. This does not include the many who speak the liturgical language, or those who speak the dialects centred on Alqosh (that have had a substantially different history, although similar to the Ashiret dialects), or those dialects further afield. I agree that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic isn't a perfect term, but it is accurate. Labelling a whole raft of languages and dialects with very different origins and histories as Assyrian actually makes the issue less clear. I am an Aramaic linguist who has been writing articles for Wikipedia which give a presence to Assyrian/Aramaean/Syriac language. I am qualified and able to make edits here. It is inappropriate of you to judge anyone as incapable of doing so. However, you may be considered to be a bad editor by the community if you continue to make edits that are politically motivated and unencyclopaedic. Your latest brace of edits (diff) readjusted the number of speakers to an unfeasible 4.5 million again, broadened out the geographic distribution and totally removed the lead paragraph which defines what the article is about. You removed also the only referrence in the article, and you keep replacing the Slovak interlanguage link with one that doesn't work. You have heard who I am, and you have heard the catalogue of reasoned complaints about your edits to this article. Can you expalin what you these edits are about? Gareth Hughes 20:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Garzo..I am from south east Turkey (Nort of Assyria)..I was born in Turabdin in Midyat i think you were there when you mean east Turkey..I made this edits because I dont want other nations to see our language is its only here because we are Christians..You make it very Christiand and so on.I am an Christen Orthodox and yes I do belive in God etc..I can read and speak Aramaic..In the Orthodox Church we have studens who can study Aramaic (Assyrian) in our churches and I am one of them.The speakers of Assyrian are estimated to 4.5 million speakers if you disagree just check new fact..I think you were with Suryoye in Turkey.These are also Assyrians but nowadays some of them declare themselves as "Syriacs" and "Aramean"..Soo these changes ive made are because Assyrians does NOT want to see their language in only a Christian view..We are almost all nationalists so we want it from a nationalist view..If you want to do a article about the Assyrian language spoken in Church your welcome but the Assyrian language is made for our people and not our church..Our church has its own language..SOo if you got anymore questions ask me or add me at msn..!!??Assyria 90 16:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Youhanna, I know Midyat very well, and I have also spent time researching further east (around Shirnak and Hakkari). I think you misunderstand the subject of this article. There is another article titled Assyrian language, which points readers to more specific articles about the dialects. This article is about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic because it is different from other dialects that might be grouped together as Assyrian. There may be 4.5 millon speakers of Assyrian if you define that broadly enough, but there certainly are not that many speakers of this dialect. My writing comes from scientific study of the numerous dialects of Aramaic, both classical and modern, which have been backed up by field work. I would still like to see some facts to back up your claims. Gareth Hughes 14:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Start with 3.5 million: let's have the demographic break down: where do they live and exactly what dialects do they speak? Have fun trawling round AINA! Gareth Hughes 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I was the one who edited

message: Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is not synonymous with "Sureth", which is a term not in common usage in English.  Common English usage is the primary driver for what we call things in English.  From the bibliography, it seems that the editor is using "Sureth" as a synonym for "Syriac".  His references belong there and not here.  (Taivo (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sureth" 

message: Assyrian language →  — This article should never have been moved from Assyrian Neo-Aramaic in the first place without consensus.  "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" is the most commonly used name in English for this language.  "Assyrian language" most commonly refers to the dialect of Akkadian spoken in ancient Assyria.  Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Requested move */ 

message: What is the phonemic status of the affricates ? If they are merely regional realizations of , then they are not phonemes and therefore should not be present in the table. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is that they are phonemes - see User_talk:Meganesia#Postalveolar_affricates_in_Assyrian_Neo-Aramaic. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affricates 

message: Ethnologue only justifies about 80k speakers.  The rest of the supposed 230k is never cited: no dates, no location.  Estimates on Assyrian have dropped sharply since Ethn. started collecting its data (probably even more so in the diaspora), so without better info, we can't in good conscience repeat their total.  — kwami (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Don't add this word because it's trending! That's forced usage. --2.245.169.179 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quizzaciously 

message: The section on Script begins: "The original Mesopotamian writing system (believed to be the world's oldest) was derived around 3600 BC from this method [note: no method was specified up to this point] of keeping accounts. By the end of the 4th millennium BC, the Mesopotamians were using a triangular-shaped stylus pressed into soft clay to record numbers." I believe the intent is to have the sentences the other way around: "By the end of the 4th millennium BC, the Mesopotamians were using a triangular-shaped stylus pressed into soft clay to record numbers. The original Mesopotamian writing system (believed to be the world's oldest) was derived around 3600 BC from this method of keeping accounts." Or it could be done (less elegantly) with a colon. 197.88.91.246 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence order

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. 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/20081202005322/http://www.lightofword.org/aramaic/pdf/Introduction.pdf to http://www.lightofword.org/aramaic/pdf/Introduction.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717071922/http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf to http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.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) 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is very many wrong things about this article.
To start with ”Assyrian Neo-Aramaic”, that is not the name of the language, the name is Aramaic, or ”Neo-Aramaic”, but not ”Assyrian”, I would recommend not use that term since the language of the ancinent Assyrians was Akkadian (𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑). The language that ’Assyrians’ speak today is Aramaic, it cannot be named, or even include ”Assyrian”.
Because this dialect is the same as Eastern Aramaic, why change it’s original name to ”Assyrian”? That is completely unnecessary! It’s like America would start having Aramaic as their official, and first language, let’s say they speak Western Aramaic, would they be calling it “American Neo-Aramaic”? No, that is to erase history, and people’s original language!
Next thing is the “Lišanna Athuraya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ), and “Lišanna Ashuraya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܫܘܪܝܐ).
“Ashuraya/Ashuroyo” has never even existed in the Aramaic language, this is just a taken word from Akkadian “Ašurayu”, meaning the people Assyrians, the Assyrians never had a language, they spoke Akkadian, and today ‘Assyrians’ speak Aramaic, so I see no point in “Lišanna Ashuraya”, “Lišanna, Athuraya”. You should change this to “Lišanna Aramaya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ), since the language is Aramaic.
Shabo.Hanna.Izgin (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ”Lišanna Ashuraya”? 

message: why dis you revert my edits? the academical term for the language is Aramaic, the dialect Eastern Neo-Aramaic, I even provided sources Johannesgabrielsson (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lešānā Sūryāyā / Ārāmāyā* 

message: As someone of Assyrian ancestry, I wasn't too happy to see the page formerly called "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" renamed "Suret Language."  Whether that is a historically or linguistically accurate name or not, it's misleading to a native English speaker, because to my knowledge no one in the English-speaking world short of scholars call it by that name when speaking English.  Its use would be sort of like using "Deutsch" and "Français" to describe German and French within English sentences.  It reads as wrong.  My concern is that the use of the word "Suret" has the effect of further obscuring the identity of a broad, multicentric community of people who are already mostly invisible in the modern world.
I would ask that the Wikipedia crew reconsider this renaming.  "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic Languages" seems to me to be no more or less accurate than Suret, and has the effect of clearly identifying this as the language spoken by modern communities who identify as Assyrian.  That's a plus.  Please consider this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.175.184 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Suret" language 

message: Why is this language called Suret? This is not practical, as there is an English name for it, just as Armenian language is not called Hayeren, Hebrew language is not Ivrith. Another nuance, the vast majority of Assyrians call this language Lishana Ashuraya (Ashurith). I don't know when this edit was made, but for Assyrians outside of the U.S., no such term as "Suret" is known. Diklath (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in English