Talk:Finnic languages

Move to Baltic-Finnic languages?

Moved. violet/riga (t) 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is a mess, considerable improvement is needed. At least the following point should be addressed:

• The article is not well structured - subsection headings should be introduced, and the information should be presented in a clear and coherent order
• A basic overview of the language group: where the languages are spoken, by how many speakers; a map is needed as well
• Internal relations (how the Finnic languages are grouped) and external relations (how they are related to the rest of the Uralic languages)
• Typological profile / most important common features
• Theories of origins: where Proto-Finnic developed, how the modern Finnic languages emerged
• Overview of the official/legal status of the languages and the sociolinguistic situation

--AAikio 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The map is way off. It includes many non-Finnic languages as Finnic.

I seriously doubt South Estonian language exists

Who invented this South Estonian language ? I think such language (as language, not group of dialects with shared vocabulary) is totally bogus and certainly it does not deserve any different status than Savo Finnish or East Finnish and many similar groupings.

Also, I think that one 'language' Võro being part of other 'language' South Estonian language is an oxymoron, language subgroups are usually called dialects.

I am totally open to suggestion that Võro-Seto is a separate language and not an Estonian dialect as it has different grammar than Estonian. But dialects of Viljandi county (supposedly part of that South Estonian language) do not use that distinct Võro-Seto grammar at all, the use Estonian grammar. So they speak no more Võro language than Estonians of Kodavere parish speak Votian. In my opinion, if Võro is a separate language then the Võro language is a substratum of Tartu and Viljandi dialects of Estonian language (not that they all constitute the so called South Estonian language). Southern Estonian dialects were grouped together just because they have words not present in other dialects. That is not how languages are defined. Language definition includes Mutual intelligibility so if somebody wants to say people in Viljandi county speak South Estonian language, then they should understand Seto better that Estonian which I am sure is not the case.

Remove South Estonian language from the language list?

Warbola 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Baltic-Finnic

Is the name Baltic-Finnic preferred over Finnic? Considering the name looks similar to Baltic, in al inguistic sense, I think it could cause confusion. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Finnic" is commonly used to refer to the Finno-Permic branch of Finno-Ugric languages. --Vuo 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah, it appeared the word was in real use by linguists... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not true that "Finnic" is used in the same sense as Finno-Permic. "Finnic" means the same as "Baltic Finnic". It is rarely used to refer to Finno-Permic by non-specialists, but Finno-Ugric linguists consider this use of the term erroneous.--AAikio 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that (at least in Finland and Estland) people are not extremely aware of "Volga-Finnic" groups such as Mordvinian. This is no real argument in an encyclopedia; the specialist terminology, which was created in order to cover the fuller reality, is to be preferred. (The term "Volga-Finnic", incidently, is fairly old; perhaps it is rejected as too unprecise today?) There are a number of Americans who use the term English to refer to American English, and consider other forms as deviations from this; they are mostly aware of the existence of British English, but not of e.g. Australian Engish (and tend to correct what they believe are spelling mistakes by Australians). The wiki project has not catered to this view - even if it reappears now and then by authors who claim e.g. that the number of hits of a form on the internet should define it. I don't think we should, as concerns the Finnic language group either. JoergenB 12:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages? Is that a joke? Please rephrase so that it would make sense. And regarding the discussion here earlier about Finno-Permic, please do not use not sourced opinions for backing up any claims. There are multiple interpretations of how exactly the Finnic languages are group together or not. There are no rules here like in mathematics; every researcher has their own opinion. What is the case though, Baltic Finnic is most often referred to as Finnic only by the Baltic-Finnic linguists perhaps as I've lately learned. So please AAikio, provide the source who says that Finno-Ugric linguists consider this use of the term erroneous Meanwhile, since the article is not refed with any sources, next time I'm going to come by, all opinions regarding Baltic-Finnic=Finnic are going to be challenged since it is factually incorrect. Please meanwhile fix the article according to the facts. I'm not going to tag it just yet even though there are no sources provided of any kind and it shows in the text. Thanks--Termer 09:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post is utterly confused. Yes, Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages. Baltic languages are Indo-European languages, whereas Baltic-Finnic languages are Uralic languages. This is no more a joke than the fact that Spanish is not related to Basque. I think you should check the basics before making any edits to articles when you're clearly not acquainted with the subject matter. I wouldn't myself start challenging anything in a zoological article if I didn't know the difference between cats and dogs. As to your idea of adding references, this is of course a very good suggestion and I will add one. When you encounter unsourced linguistic claims that you find suspicious, please add a fact tag so other users can check them and add appropriate references. --AAikio 07:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the terminological note and a reference to Finno-Permic languages. --AAikio 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing has been done to straighten up the article, I've fixed up the header according to facts. For example Baltic-Finnic is not Finnic like the article claimed before but just one branch of Finnic languages beside of Volga finnic. etc. There is still a lot of work to be done, feel free to help out anybody. thanks--Termer (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. There is no such a language as "Southern Estonian" , instead there are Võro and Seto languages spoken in Southern Estonia. That was fixed in the article as well.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've once again displayed your complete ignorance abut the topic of the article, but still claim that you have fixed it according to the "facts". Great, I provided a reference for what 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean. You chose to ignore it and now returned the incorrect statements to the article, and made it inconsistent with the article Finno-Permic languages. Moreover, now you claim that there is no such language as South Estonian. But I could immediately give a list of a dozen scholars who have published studies on this or that linguistic question on South Estonian. So you claim that these linguists have studied nothing, because such a language does not exist? This is pure idiocy. Now, I am not going to revert any of your edits just because I know them to be incorrect and I could provide references that them as incorrect. It is just a waste of time, because - it seems - here on Wikipedia any anonymous know-nothing is on a par with an expert in any field. But maybe someone else will revert them, we shall see. --AAikio (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing refs frot what 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean. Feel free to add those refs to the article. There are 5 other referenced interpretations what exactly 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean currently also added to Finnic languages, therefore what you consider "correct" is just one way to look at it. Also "South Estonian" is used in historic context spoken in the historic Livonia in contrast to "Northern Estonian". Using the term "South Estonian" nowadays would be like calling Hungarian language "Southern Finno-Ugric language" and Finnish language would be "Northern Finno-Ugric language". --Termer (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will just point out that once again you manage to show your ignorance of the subject you are writing about. You say:

""South Estonian" is used in historic context spoken in the historic Livonia in contrast to "Northern Estonian". Using the term "South Estonian" nowadays would be like calling Hungarian language "Southern Finno-Ugric language" and Finnish language would be "Northern Finno-Ugric language". "

This is flat-out wrong. Like I said, there are many linguists who use the term South Estonian (or e.g. its Finnish equivalent eteläviro) for the language (dialect, language group, whatever). I will give just one example published this year: Petri Kallio in his paper Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa discusses the historical phonology of Finnic languages, and shows that present-day South Estonian (= eteläviro) retains many archaic characterestics that have hitherto not been noticed. This paper is published in Jussi Ylikoski & Ante Aikio (eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit - Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 253.

This is the usage that you label as ignorant as calling Hungarian "Southern Finno-Ugric language" (which it has, in fact, never been called by anyone). So you are essentially saying that the linguists publishing on these questions do not know their trade, at least as far as terminology goes. I wonder who should one rely on in this terminological dispute: the published linguists themselves, or an anonymous Wikipedia editor who at first did not know that Baltic-Finnic languages are unrelated to Baltic languages? --AAikio (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Petri Kallio is free to label any languages on geographic basis. And in case in his book exist a language called "South Estonian" feel free to add "according to Kallio" to the article. However, WP is way ahead of Kallio: the language he is referring to is either Seto language or Võro language. WP only knows of the South Estonian dialects, not a single language , the idea that was there perhaps hundreds of years ago.
did not know that Baltic-Finnic languages are unrelated to Baltic languages? Who or what gave you such an idea? However thats not exactly correct either. There are many loans in Baltic-Finnic languages that come straight from Baltic languages, they belong to different language families though, and "everybody" knows that. So I have no idea what are you talking about while referring to my presumed knowledge. --Termer (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have not taken any definite stance on whether South Estonian is a "language" or something else (a dialect group, a group of languages, or whatever), and neither has Petri Kallio. My impression is that you have been opposing the use of the term 'South Estonian' altogether, and blaming those who use it for ignorance, even though it is your claims that altogether contradict the established praxis in the field.

Your comment, once again, only shows me your ignorance of the established linguistic terminology. Now you say that Kallio "is free to label any languages". But Kallio has not labeled anything, he has just continued an established practice. It is not Kallio's invention to use the term 'eteläviro' (= 'South Estonian'), the same term is routinely used by numerous linguists working on Finnic.

And then, even though you're apparently quite unaware of the terminology these linguists are using, you now claim that the Wikipedia is "way ahead" of scholars who are at present actually working and publishing on these issues. This claim is so utterly bizarre and senseless that I'll restrict myself only to saying that it is actually against Wikipedia guidelines to get "way ahead" of anything, because that would be original research.

Just to make it clear, I do not have anything against the use of such terms as 'Seto language' and 'Võro language', but I do not have anything against the term 'South(ern) Estonian' either'. Because these two "languages" are mutually only in a dialectal relationship, it is linguistically entirely justified to refer to them as single language (or linkage, or dialect group, or whatever) in a linguistic context. The traditional term for this is 'South Estonian', and this is a well-established practice known to everyone in this linguistic field, regardless of whether you like this terminology or not. Even so, also the terms 'Seto language' and 'Võro language' can naturally equally well be used in any context where this seems appropriate - for example, to emphasize the different historical backgrounds and ethnic identities of these two groups.

Then about my comment on Baltic languages - you originally wrote above as follows:

"Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages? Is that a joke? Please rephrase so that it would make sense."

So I can only repeat my comment above. Quite so, Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages, that is not a joke. So the answer to your question ("Who or what gave you such an idea?") is you.--AAikio (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello, continuing my selfdesingated quest, in making various maps. Did an Image:ItämerensuomMurreTextiAika.png, tried to check things from many articles, but still don't know how accurate that is, but is it accurate enough? put it in the article if you see it fit. Dreg743 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In case the map is about Finnic languages than Hungarian doesn't belong to the group. In case it's about Finno-Ugric languages perhaps you'd like to check out this one

--Termer (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there are some Saami people living (5 %? )in Southern Lapland, most I think use Finnish. The same goes with Northern Norway atlantic coast, where Saami have some villages if I remember correctly. There the language they use is mostly Norwegian, maybe some use also the Kven dialect (which is quite hard to get for a finn from southeast.) Otherwise no objections, as I do not know the current situation in Russia too well. I'll have to check the distribution of Mari language. Thanks for that :-). Dreg743 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Finland but traveling in Northern Sweden and Norway, there was Sami language coming from the car radio quite often.--Termer (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we do have some broadcasting in Sami in Finland, see f.e. http: //lotta.yle.fi/srwebanar.nsf/sivut/ovdasiidu2004 , and regular news on TV (I guess they're at least partly the same than in Sweden and Norway). 91.155.153.179 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me also comment on this: it is a very clear and nice-looking map. However, there's one detail that should be improved. The "Kven" area on the Norwegian coast should also be colored with green lines, because both Saami and Finnish (= Kven) are spoken over this entire coastal area; and Saami certainly even has many more speakers than Kven in this area. Now the map gives the incorrect impression that Saami would be confined to the inland areas and bordered by Kven in the North. --213.139.161.102 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And adding to my previous comment above (forgot to log in, hence the IP): also the distribution of Saami on the Kola Peninsula must be fixed. Now there are green dots covering also the southern side of the peninsula, but Saami has not been spoken in these areas for quite a while; hence the distribution is currently too large. Also some other details could maybe be improved; e.g. Mordvin is definitely spoken in a larger area than now displayed. I think a very good idea would be to check the details against the map "Geographical Distribution of the Uralic Languages" by Riho Grünthal and Tapani Salminen, published by the Finno-Ugrian Society and available at [1] for 9€. --AAikio (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)