Talk:Kartvelian languages

message: It's bad that the main names: South Caucasian languages and :Category:Kartvelian languages do not match, although they have just the same meaning. (In the present situation, for an article on one of the languges to look not misleading, one needs to relate the two names as synonyms.) One of them should be renamed.--Imz 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  article/category name mismatch suggest renaming 

message: South Caucasian languages are said to be also called "Ibero-Caucasian languages" while the article with that name says that "Ibero-Caucasian languages" is a proposed family tree including South Caucasian languages. That fact mismatch needs to be resolved, although I have not competence enough to do it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact mismatch

message: The table with sample words has a single column for both Mingrelian and Laz. Are the words taken from Mingrelian or Laz (when not the same)? --JorisvS (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mingrelian or Laz words? 

message: I just moved the Proto-Kartvelian consonants to where it belongs, on Proto-Kartvelian language. I think we should consider what we want to do with the entire Comparative Grammar section, because as it stands now it pretty much dwarfs the rest of the article. Also, could it be that there is more content there that would be more correctly placed on the Proto-Kartvelian language page? I'd like your input. --JorisvS (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts. Thank you very much for the relevant corrections. As for the fate of the Comparative Grammar section, I think it should be extended more, as well as the rest of the article. I am going to do that step by step. --Benfaremo (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, more to tell, let's tell. It's just that I'm in doubt about a) whether this is the best place for it, and b) if there's anything that could be done to remedy the imbalance between the Comparative Grammar section and the rest of the article. If both so, then everything's fine... --JorisvS (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative Grammar section 

message: It is my belief that the page South Caucasian languages must be moved to page Kartvelian languages.  Term South Caucasian languages, while not incorrect, can mislead readers who are not very experienced in linguistics. Namely, one can mistakenly think that South Caucasian languages include all of the languages of the geographic so-called South Caucasus while this is not the case; this has happened in my experience a couple of times. If one reads the article and does the research, they will be able to understand what South Caucasian languages are but when there is a less ambiguous term in existence, I do not see why one should choose the more ambiguous one for the title. --ComtesseDeMingrélie  18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested move

message: South Caucasian languages →  — Per WP:NCON articles should be named in accordance with common English usage.  "Kartvelian" is becoming the most common name in linguistic academic circles for this group of languages.  --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the term North Caucasian Languages is also confusing considering that many languages in the N. Caucasus have nothing in common. The fact that the legitimacy of the N. Caucasus classification is "widely disputed" is already noted on the North Caucasian languages article in case you have not read it. Nevertheless, this should be part of this discussion. --ComtesseDeMingrélie  21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnologue also uses "Kartvelian" now, as well.  --Taivo (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have much against using the term "Kartvelian" per se. I would like a thought on the Northeast and Northwest C languages, as these were named such in opposition to a South C family and only make sense in opposition to one another. --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I moved the Talk page to go with the article.  If this discussion results in an oppose to move, then it can be moved back when the article is moved back.  --Taivo (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disturbed by the fact that my "behavior" is brought up on this discussion after JorisvS indiscriminately reverted all of my edits without justification. The problem was not the move after being warned, the problem was removal of legitimate edits within the article. As for the name itself, it does not appear that we are challenging an existing consensus, we are merely changing what someone before us preferred(There's no better word considering that the two terms are synonymous). Just because the name was in place when we checked the page does not mean that it had been put in place for good reasons. If there is a pre-existing consensus that I am not aware of, please point me to it and the reasons behind it.--ComtesseDeMingrélie  23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: P.S.  I've looked at most of the edits made by User:ComtesseDeMingrelie while at the other title, with a view to reintroducing them, and most of them consist of changing South Caucasian to Kartvelian.  However a) while the page is at this title it makes more sense to keep them as South Caucasian and b) the changes have been opposed on the user's talk page and per WP:BRD they should now be discussed here.  Additionally anyone else redoing those edits would make attribution more difficult and so also possibly cause copyright problems so it would be easiest if User:ComtesseDeMingrelie did them again in this version once a consensus has been reached. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be ware that I did try to move the pages through the regular "move" option but it did not let me. It said the destination page already existed and I did not see another way but to copy/paste.--ComtesseDeMingrélie  00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was probably the case but as you'd already reverted several times I worded the above reasonably strongly so that, hopefully, you did not do so again - I certainly wasn't trying to imply you'd been delibrately disruptive or anything.  At least you'll know for next time - WP:MOVE should explain most of what you need to know although WP:RM may also be helpful reading. Dpmuk (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Dpmuk. Comtesse, that was the point I was trying to make. --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Kartvelian languages's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Britannica":
From Proto-Kartvelian language: Britannica
From European Union: 
From Iran: Encyclopædia Britannica 23 January 2008
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Kartvelian languages]] 

message: So far as I am aware, Turkey is a nation which exists on two continents, but Anatolia is a geographic term. I think we need consensus before we start referring to Turkey as a geographic region. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I will put "northeast" back. Alba Illyrian (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would still have to be Anatolia.  I made an alternate suggestion on your talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it "still have to be Anatolia." Alba Illyrian (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The template for the article specifies geographical location, not countries in which the language(s) are spoken.  The article for Anatolia says "Anatolia ... is a geographic and historical term denoting the westernmost protrusion of Asia" and the article for Turkey says "Turkey ... is a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in western Asia and Thrace in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe."  Turkey is a country, Anatolia is a geographic term. Like I said, feel free to change "Georgia" to "Western Trans-Caucasus". μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  geographic distribution 

message: map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Johnston,_Alexander_Keith_(1804-1871)._Turkey_in_Asia,_Transcaucasia._1861_(EA).jpg FACT: the South Caucasian people were living there (before the Ancient Greeks came)... Böri (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canik and Lazistan 

message: It would be useful to me to link the declension terms like ergative and lative, which don't (as far as I know) appear in IE languages. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kartvelian 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080227021821/http://person.sol.lu.se/ArthurHolmer/caucprojreport.pdf to http://person.sol.lu.se/ArthurHolmer/caucprojreport.pdf
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) 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section "Higher-level connections", the article presently says:
:Note however that both the concept of a Nostratic family and Kartvelian's relation to it are not considered likely by other linguists.
I'm inclined to think most linguists would say there's no plausible evidence of a relationship, but I think they would refrain from saying whether a relationship is likely or not.
Thus, Id' propose something like:
:Note however that most linguists find the concept of a Nostratic family and Kartvelian's relation to it to be purely speculative.
Am I right? Nø (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher-level connections 

message: Kartvelian languages are mentioned in . I wonder if the claim of possible connection is notable enough to be included in ? Daask (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible relationship with Hattic 

message: From the introductory paragraph.  Seems a bit optimistic? 2600:1702:6D0:5160:2D31:7E6:F3F6:6145 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not optimistic. It's a false number 185.115.4.152 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "approximately 12.4 million Kartvelian speakers worldwide"