Talk:Angika

message: Angika is a language of Anga desh. Angika is spoken by nearly 50000000 people of the world.
(ma 06:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The second paragraph of the current version of this article
claims that this language is closely related to Khmer, a language
from an entirely different family.
Might have been related to old form of Khmer.
:: Languages don't change their typologies! Angika is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language that has no natural typological affinities to any language families of South-East Asia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.222.90 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion could arise from the fact that Angika is an Indic language, and Khmer historically borrowed a lot of its vocabulary from Indic languages (Sanskrit and Pali, predominantly). Although Khmer is not at all an Indic language, much of its vocabulary does have Indic roots. --SameerKhan (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related to Khmer??? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The article is related to Angika Language. Relevancy is not justified. To be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.41.18 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Angvani on this page??? 

message: User Samyo used the undo function to revert my earlier edit. I have reverted it back because he did not use any reliable references to support his claims. The edit Samyo reverted to has numerous problems. One is the unreferenced claim of the number of Angika speakers. Per the verifiability policy reliable references are required to back up material that is questionable. A website such as  http://164.100.24.208 that Samyo is reverting back to is not remotely reliable. Something scholarly would be needed especially since 30 million is a drastic contradiction to the Ethnologue source. Another problem is the claim of Saraha being an Angika poet. As has been pointed out in the past in the edit history of the article, the Modern Northern Indo Aryan languages such as Hindi and Angika did not exist in the 800 AD. Precursors of them did, but it would require highly reliable sources to support that Saraha wrote in Angika specifically. Another problem with the edit is removing the mention of the relation to Maithili with is easily established by any source. Reliable references are required to add material to an article and particularly for challenged material. - Taxman Talk 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by [[User:Samyo|Samyo]] 

message: No language is older than others, assuming language itself arose only once. Languages are, however, conservative to a different degree. Now, I understand that you're proud of your language (most of us are), but why don't you write something about how Angika is more conservative than others instead of coming up with a clearly false claim. (The same claim has been made about Greek, Sanskrit, Lithuanian, Basque and the list goes on.) All the best 85.220.126.72 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: In any case, the article has next to nothing to say about the language itself. You would do everyone a favour by doing so. The only bit of information is "Angika shows a regular contrast for animates", which is anything but unique. Cheers 85.220.126.72 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Angpradesh 

message: Here is the Ethnologue report on Angika. Its estimate is 740,900 speakers in all countries. So where does the figure of 50 million come from?
Another thing is its genealogy, which is listed Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Eastern zone, Bihari. So if Angika is so old, shouldn't it be "older" than Proto-Indoeuropean or Sanskrit? Or does "old" here simply reflect the wish of a native speaker to put some sort of "quality-stamp" on his language? In any case, if one language is "one of the oldest languages in the world", that should mean that that language (and presumably a few select others) were in existence long ago while the rest of humanity didn't have speech! Please drop this assertion, heard over and over about various languages, all equally false, and concentrate on the real points of the languguage. And comments about a language's "genius" etc. don't belong in an article about it. The article should be a description, and then others can draw their own conclusions. All the best Io (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The number 30,000,000 (3 crores) was mentioned by Shri Subodh Roy in a parliamentary discussion. Now which is more believable, the estimate of professional linguists or a politician trying to sneak in a probably invalid number? Cheers Io (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of research (Ethnologue) leads to the conclusion, that you get over 30,000,000 if you count Angika and Maithili as one. The article, however regards these as separate languages (and so does Ethnologue). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cheers Io (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age and number of speakers 

message: :The article does not claim that Angika is the oldest language of the world. Rather it claims that Angika is among one of the oldest languages of the world. The reference is also cited for the same. It is not correct to assume that the age of all the languages is same.
::Angika  being an Indian Langauge, the Indian version of discussion should be taken as more realistic. Hence the number 30,000,000 (3 crores) as mentioned by Shri Subodh Roy in a parliamentary discussion is valid.
:::A bit of research conclude that the every fact and data as mentioned in 'Ethnologue' or 'SIL' is not correct. For example, 'Ethnologue' and 'SIL' shows that Bihari is a language. However in real life Bihari language does not exist.
::::Suggestion to say it archaic is not correct, because it does exist in modern period and not out dated. 
Angpradesh (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what archaic means in this context. One says that a language is archaic or retains archaic features, if it has features that were present in its predecessors long ago. Please use a dictionary sometimes. Io (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And professional linguists are generally more reliable than politician. Being an Indian does not make you an expert on Indian languages, not even your mother-tongue. That requires study and, needless to say, that goes for the rest of the world. I take it you have had very limited linguistic training. Try reading a few books on the subject. Io (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, it makes no difference, whether a language is said to the oldest or one of the oldest in the world. The point is, the word "old" does not apply. All languages are equally old, some are just more archaic than others. Io (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Ethnologue does not claim that Bihari is a language. It claims that it is a group of twelve languages. Could you at least, please, try to understand what you read before you use an (in this case, non-existent) argument? Cheers Io (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim for Age and Number of Speakers are based on Real Evidences

message: Sheikhpura and Lakhisarhrai are Magahi speaking regions of Bihar. If you click the two districts on Angika page, it will take you to the wiki page for these two districts.  The website for these two districts show Magahi as the official language of these two districts.  So, why are these two districts incorrectly being included in the Angika? These two districts should be included in the Magadha. 
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmeusername (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Angika speaking Regions of Bihar  

message: It is observed that User:Jakichandan has been involved  in vandalising the Articles related to Angika Language during last few days.
* He has redirected years back old page of Angika language to Angika along with Talk page and history pages without any discussions on talk page of the Article.
* He then deleted all of the old content cited with reliable sources and replaced the same with unreliable sources.
* He then redirected no. of other angika  related topic pages to a single page to Angika.
*He tried to harass me on my talk page when I tried to keep the article intact.
*Thereafter he started hiding the important discussions held on talk page of the article Angika language.
*Ultimately he made the Talk page hidden so that his vandalism activities can be covered up.
User:Jakichandan is requested to undo all the things as earlier of my edit on 1st March 2018.
Samyo (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Observed 

message: The current version of the lede is a mess. The very first sentence contains no fewer than four references. Two of them cite different pages from the same volume in Grierson's LSI, and judging by the article history, appear to have been used only to support the name Chhika-Chhiki. The other two refs are:
*Tosha, M., & Dwivedi, R. R. Angika Folksongs and Physical Environment: A Critical Perspective on Parallel Decline.
*Kumari, K., & Upadhyay, R. K. (2020). SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECT OF ANGIKA. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), 6797-6804.
They were added in September last year  , and their only purpose appears to be to support the statement that Angika is a language, presumably in contrast to being something else, such as a dialect. Not that those sources have stopped people from changing the article text to insist – in two separate places within the same sentence – that Angika is a dialect of Maithili. Now, I'm going to remove that nonsense, but I'm not going to keep those refs, as they can't really be used for anything in this article. The first one (available online at ) is only about folk songs. The second one (online at ) appears to contain some useful information on grammar and vocabulary, but its quality isn't great (you can see for yourself, you don't need me to add that the journal it's published in – PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology – has very likely become predatory starting in 2020).
The best thing in the first paragraph is the citation of Ethnologue (of all places), so I'm going to pare the text down to what is verifiably stated there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there reliable (that is, linguistic) sources for these statements? Note that Glottolog does not classify Angika as a Maithili dialect . – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

text: "Language" does not mean "scheduled language". There are 22 languages designated as having official status,  but the total number of languages (with or without official status) is much higher: Glottolog, for example, lists over 500. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article lede in 2022