Talk:Languages of India/Archive 1

Untitled

There are no corresponding sounds in Indian languages to the English "th" sounds. "th" in English is used to represent two sounds: (1) an unvoiced dental fricative (as in "thin") and (2) a voiced dental fricative (as in "this"). Neither sound exists in Hindi. Hindi speakers for whom English is a second language often substitute the Hindi th (unvoiced aspirated dental plosive) for the first sound, and the Hindi d (voiced unaspirated dental plosive) for the second sound, but note that these sounds are both plosives, not fricatives.

Also please note the corrected term "fricative" rather than "aspirant." Also, the ch chh j jh sounds are affricates, which represented blends of plosives and fricatives, and should be noted as such.

Also, please note that the English t and d are alveolar plosives, which also do not exist in Indian languages. They are close to the retroflex t and d of Indian languages and are often substituted for each other, but they are not the same. It is also not correct to say that the aspirated versions of these sounds do not exist in English. They do exist, but they exist as morphemes of the same phoneme. Think about how a native English speaker pronounces "tank" and "can't." In the first case, you have an aspirated "t" and an unaspirated "k" and in the second case, you have an unaspirated "t" and an aspirated "k," but most English speakers will not recognize the difference between the sounds because the differences are not phonemically significant. In other words, aspiration in English is mostly a function of the position of a sound in a word, not as a function of meaning. 149.79.146.138 20:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

199.74.89.238 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Bavs199.74.89.238 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And by "Indian Languages" I presume you mean Indian Indo-European languages. The unvoiced dental fricative th is a staple of all South and South Central Dravidian languages. Kingsleyj 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Indian languages mean NOT only Hindi

"Indian language" means language spoken in India. It does not necessarily mean Hindi Alone.

The "th" sound is well represented in the language Tamil, which is more than 2000 years old. Doctor Bruno 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tamil is a Classical Language

Tamil has been declared as a Classical Language by the Government of India in 2004 Doctor Bruno 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to use a consistent transliteration scheme, proper grammar, and proper capitalization.

Arun 07:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Small cleanup

I'm no expert but I stumbled across the article and I think it's an important subject, so I've tried to improve the following:

• Literature changed to literature
• "Both of them has a very large collections of Literature of 5000 and 2500 years old repectively (Tamil literature)" changed to "Both of them have very large collections of literature, with the earliest Sanskrit texts dating from 5000 years ago and the earliest Tamil literature from 2500 years ago." No idea if this is right but it's the only sensible thing I could make from the existing sentence. I think some references should be added to give some credence to these dates.
• "it is interestingly being revived" changed to "it is being revived".
• "having more than 74 million speakers, which is 1000 times larger than 6,106 fluent speakers (1981 census) of sanskrit" changed to "having more than 74 million speakers, which is 10,000 times larger than 6,106 fluent speakers of Sanskrit (1981 census)". I'm pretty sure that 1,000 x 6,000 = 6 million. Begs the question whether it's actually 7.4 million speakers of Tamil, but I'm assuming not.
• On a side-note, is this saying that there are 74m speakers in India? Or globally? I don't think an article on the languages of England/UK should spend valuable space noting that English is spoken quite a lot in the USA, so we should make this India only if it isn't already. On the same basis, I've removed the additional comment "Tamil has the official status outside india also" because it's irrelevent.
• Since mellifluous apparently means "pleasing to the ear" I've left it in but I'm slightly concerned at the assumption that Italian is more beautiful to the ear than, say, Celtic and that it is used more in music than, say, English. Again, some references should be added to stop this looking like a POV bias.

Kayman1uk 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the map

A nitpick, but the state of Andhra Pradesh has been labelled as 'andhra' in Telugu on the map. Given that we've added the appelation 'pradesh' to all other states having 'pradesh' in their names, I think it makes stylistic sense to label Andhra Pradesh as 'ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్', and not simply 'ఆంధ్ర', as it is labelled now.

MAP is biased in favour of HINDI: Why does it show the hindi belt and then juts into punjab, himachal and northern haryana where there are either western pahari or punjabi dialects spoken....even chandigarh is shown as hindi region which anhone with an iota of knowledge knows is a native puadhi dialect(punjabi) speaking area..........also, the same thing with the inclusion of Rajasthni in the hindi belt when its considered a separate language by almost all lingusits and same with Bhojpuri in Bihar. This is just over extending the Hindi area to nake it look bigger.

Then there is the question of why show just the hindi region ona map of india? isn't this the page about languages of india? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.2.106 (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not like it?

Replace it with a better one.

That is the way Wikipedia works. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The map also shows Sri Lanka. Just letting you all know. In case you haven't noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:4EB:31A2:B8BF:B77B (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)

Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

tamil aspirates

"This classification is observed in all the languages under discussion" - what about tamil, which doesn't even have aspirated consonants except when special characters are used for writing Sanskrit (Granthakshara)?--Grammatical error 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please reword it. See Tamil language#Phonology. I'm not an expert on such issues; but, one can ask Arvind for any clarifications. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've refactored the lead per WP:LEAD. This article needs a lot of improvement. Currently, beyond the lead, there's nothing except the alphabets. We need to somehow shed our inclination to mention data about individual languages and [instead] create a proper encyclopaedic article on the subject at hand. We need good maps as in African languages and the layout could be a modified version of Gbe languages. Because all the Gbe languages are linguistically related, they were able to talk about language features, whereas, we need to have smaller summary subsections talking about features of the 4 linguistic families plus Andamanese languages. A good test for not wavering beyond the topic is the extent to which we avoid mention of individual languages in favour of language families. The lead section should ideally be the only place for their mention. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head, and good job on the lead, that looks very good. The alphabets section needs to be shortened (and/or split into writing systems and phonology which is what much of it is really about), and then you're right the article needs some expansion on the various families. They should get space relative to the number of speakers of each family, though not exactly proportional. The Gbe languages article is a good model for what to cover, but we should work on a proposed outline of what the article should ideally cover, then we can go do some research to get good sources to cite. General linguistis topics would be history, writing system, phonology, morphology, syntax (grammar), and maybe a bit on corpus linguistics and translation. I fear that if we cover that four times the article may be unwieldy, though maybe not it we don't create that many subsections for each of the language families. The smaller families could just have one or two paragraphs that summarize all of that. Should the major subsections be the topics I listed above or should it be the 4 or so language families and then cover those topics in each section? - Taxman ^Talk 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, thanks for your outline above and the copyedit done by you. The outline sounds good. We could add a distribution map if there's a definitive source. This book and others from CIIL can be useful. This, being an important main article related to India, merits good attention. Hope more editors join in the effort to improve it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but which outline do you think would work better (my last question)? It would be hard to switch. - Taxman ^Talk 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of the semantics, I lean in favour of the former. But, we need not have subsections for each language family; we could just have paragraphs. The other outline doesn't sound bad either. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I support the former. The article will need to discuss how the language families have influenced each other in grammar (e.g. the Tolkappiyam's rather strained identification of seven cases), phonology (retroflexes in Indo-Aryan), morphology and vocabulary, and it will need to do so in the context of theories such as Murray Emeneau's model of the Indian linguistic area. It seems to me we can best do this with a structure that discusses the families together, rather than separately. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the scope of the article? Languages native to India? If no,t we can also include Portuguese, French, (I don't know if Dutch was ever spoken in Kerala), and Aramaic. Pali seems to be absent, so too NE languages. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it depends on the data for the number of speakers. I would propose the coverage should be balanced by that and importance/ other factors. The article would be remiss without mention of English's role, but it seems like it would be better off without a linguistic coverage of it, instead just a survey of the role it has/had. Pali is Indo-European, so it should be covered in that context. What do you mean by NE - Northern European? And please comment on which approach to the layout you prefer based on the above. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NE = North East India, one of the most poorly documented regions of India. Sundar, maps shouldn't be a problem anymore since we've got a featured SVG map. Basic drawing using inkscape would solve the problem. Having subsections for each language family might lead to the page becoming too cluttered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If we get some data on Portugeese, French, Dutch and possibly Hebrew speakers, we could, in the interests of completeness, make a mention in a single line or a short paragraph. Yes, even I've observed the poor coverage on NE here and elsewhere. Let's do proper justice to those language families as well. Glad to know that maps are not a problem. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cochini jews had a special dialect, often called Judaeo-Malayalam which might be interesting enough to mention. We should also at least mention the existence of pockets of native speakers of Goan Portuguese (does it differ from "Standard Portuguese"?) and English since those have deep roots. Chinese and other immigrant languages probably don't merit a mention. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following text as too detailed on one language and innacurate anyway:

Urdu is unique among Indian languages. Grammatically it is 'genetically' linked to the older language of Prakrit. Much of its vocabulary is derived from neighboring Arabic, Turkish, Farsi and Sanskrit. Indeed, Urdu is the Turkish word for "camp", "tent", or "military encampment". Urdu arose due to contact between the Mughal armies and speakers of the local derivatives of Sanskrit and Prakrit. It has since evolved into a rich independent language. The modern Urdu script evolved from the Arabic script. It was introduced via Persia by invading Mughal armies, and was fitted to the local Indian phonology. Thus, even though Urdu is deeply connected with other Indian languages, and its phonology differes from that of Hindi by only six sounds, its script shows no influence from neighboring Indian alphabets.

It has grains of truth but makes it sound like Urdu is unrelated to Hindi, which no scholars would support. Besides it's too much detail for one language and I'm not sure it should be in even if properly balanced. I made other changes to start working towards what was discussed above. I'll need to go get some more sources to do much more. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, Taxman. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Telugu

I have removed "italian of the east" . Telugu is much more sweeter and italian does not stand anywhere near it. There is no need to add such old colonial phrases in the languages of India article.Bharatveer 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would cringe at including subjective things such as comparing the 'sweetness' of a language, I would, however, disagree on the contention that the phrase in question is a relic of colonial-era thinking. The sobriquet was originally given by Sir CP Brown, one of the few Telugu authors of European descent, and a person who was far removed from colonial era prejudices. He's a friend, not a foe.

We would prefer to say "Italian - Telugu of the West" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.99 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Can Nichalp or someone else go to this site, select "culture" in the "journey highlights" and grab the information required for creating maps for linguistic distribution, by clicking on "modern language distribution" etc., Since it's in flash, I'm not able to get absolute URLs. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the screenshot of an enlarged version (showing Asia) here. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Going forward

Let's start working with the layout suggested by Taxman above. Each of us shall take up some tasks and take the article forward.

• For writing systems, which are the ones prevailing here? Brahmic scripts, Konyak orthography then?

• Don't we need to talk about epigraphy?

• Language mutual influence (examples have been cited by Arvind above)

A number of ebooks are available at CIIL's site.

By the way, another article languages in India would have a different scope and perspective, wouldn't it? I can imagine that article talking about the language movements, influence on our polity, states reorganisation, political integration, language law etc., Pretty interesting, isn't it? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oughtn't we to also discuss some of that here? I'd think the article would be incomplete if it didn't at least summarise the basics of the legal and social status of the various languages in India today.

And shall we try to put together a more detailed outline here first, before going on to actually write it? -- Arvind 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Can you place a tentative outline at /Draft? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't classification be the first section in order to introduce the families? That could use a nice table of languages and their classification and perhaps a map or a chart too. Anyone? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender vs. measure words

Bengali language has numerical classifiers similar to the East Asian languages, and does not have masculine/feminine grammatical gender like most Indian and European languages do. Is this also true of other languages in eastern India? --JWB 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Less mentions of Marathi language

Surprised to see that there are very few mentions of Marathi language in this article.There's very few information given about Marathi.Im not a expert but perhaps what's relevant to Hindi,Bengali,Punjabi and Gujarati is also obvious to Marathi,but those mentions have not been given.

Marathi is an important language hence please give an comprehensive information about it here(just like Tamil/Kannada and Hindi). (mahawiki 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

In an article on a country with so many languages there is very little space for each individual langauge. The answer is probably not to add more information on a particluar language, but to remove some of the mentions of others and replace it with general information about language families. The only time a specific language should be mentioned is when some unique feature of them is important enough to justify it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV

It seems that certain users insist on pushing their POV on the declaration of Tamil as a 'Classical language'. Sarvagnya insists on including "While the experts consulted by the government refused to endorse Tamil's case"... in the article. The citation provided by him in support of this says: "...despite the objections of experts it consulted and after a committee it had appointed refused to recommend it. It is not the government's business to tinker with such cultural issues as language and literature, the president and secretary of the Sahitya Akademi, the academy of letters, who were members of a 'committee on languages' specifically wrote to the government. No government in any country has found it necessary to sit in judgement and 'declare' if a language is 'classical? or not. An effort was made to convince the establishment that language does not need to be declared ?classical?."

Read in full the news article says simply this: The experts in the committee were reluctant about tagging any language as a so-called 'classical'. There was no opposition to Tamil due to its apparent ineligibility to be declared as such. Sarvagnya's version give such a picture. Sarvagnya's insistence in reverting repeatedly to his version shows a desperate and immature desire to somehow show Tamil in a less than desirable light. This needs to be seen along with his other immature edits in this article and elsewhere:

• In the Classical language article where he defames Devaneya Pavanar by calling him a crackpot
• In the Languages of India article he uses the pejorative "jokers" in the ref tag seemingly commenting on Jayalalitha and others.

In my opinion this is nothing other than disruption. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Parthi's comments above. Also, if we include this one (only?) news item to show a political motivation for this tag, we should also include Hart's and other scholars' opinions that argue the opposite. Lotlil 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Sarvagna's insistance on using such language seems churlish. The content has to sound encyclopaedic, at least. I have added a "Citationcheck" tag to the "classical languages" section for now. --Amit 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What sentence in that section now isn't verified by the reference? Would you care to point out please? Gnanapiti 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Citecheck" tag. I've also changed "declared Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opionion" to "declared Sanskrit and Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opinion". This should address Parthi's concern above. -- Amit 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The text in the "language conflicts" section read "..the union government in 2004 elevated Tamil to a newly created official status of classical language together with Sanskrit..". The "together with Sankrit" doesn't fit in this section either stylistically or factually. Stylistically, the reference to Sanskrit is out of place in this sentence. It would merit a different sentence on its own; however such a sentence would be irrelevant in a "conflicts" section since the status of Sanskrit has never been the subject of debate. Secondly, Sanskrit was not declared classical along with Tamil; the declaration of Sanskrit as a classical language postdated the declaration of Tamil as such by a year. Ive deleted the "along with Sanskrit" from this section.

Please sign your names ev'body Amit 04:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we nuke the entire second paragraph ("govt of india assuages ...") of the "Language conflicts" section. It's utter trash and doesn't belong here. This is not a newspaper column. Amit 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the conflict

While I agree that NPOV needs to be brought in the "classical" languages section, are people willing to work towards improving this very important article? There have been discussions in the past at #Cleanup and #Going forward. Any volunteers? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical languages

This section seemed to focus a little too much on "official" classical languages. Since this article is about "Languages of India" and not "Official status of Indian languages", it seemed to me that it should have a broader focus, also discussing languages that are considered classical in the academic literature regardless of what the Government of India says. So I've gone ahead and taken a stab at expanding it. I'm fairly sure I've read stuff in the Annals of Oriental Research (Madras) which discusses the "classicity" of the Telugu of the Andhra Mahabharata, early Kannada literature and a couple of Prakrits other than Maharashtri, but I can't remember where and when. Anyway, hopefully my additions are a base upon which others more familiar with the sources can build. -- Arvind 20:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Arvind, for expanding the section. Hope someone will take the trouble of going through the references, or may be I'll get around to doing it sometime. We'll need to update the Classical languages article too to bring it in line with this one.

Also, let's please keep the discussions on this page, as some discussions seem to have continued on Arvind's talk page. Amit 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Arvind. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Language conflicts

This section needs to be renamed and the coverage needs to be broader. For example, if it doesn't mention the struggle by Potti Sreeramulu, it's incomplete to say the least. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's this section gone to? Communalism (South Asia) links to it and it seems to have disappeared.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. It was so poorly cited and imbalanced, that I can't say I disagree with the removal. While there does need to be a section covering language conflict, and some of that does need to cover the Hindi issue, it needs to be redone I think. Sundar, what did you have in mind for a proper section title? - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In Kerala, Malayalam is a compulsory language in school so as Hindi and English. There's no 'language conflict' as such ever reported in the region and nothing available for citation. It should be removed. Anu Raj (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

removed misleading mentioning of the state along with the Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. There's no such conflict ever reported in any part of the state. Anu Raj (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The consensus was not to move. Sarvagnya 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages of India → Indian language — Move to a standard language-type article's name —Wikipedian 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support FinaleFever 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Languages of India are many and there's no parallel with articles on individual languages like English language, Spanish language, etc., Languages of India don't even fall under a single family of languages, btw. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Languages of India" and "Indian language" are not even the same things.. I mean what is "Indian language" anyway? Sarvagnya 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It doesn't make sense to try and match articles about single languages like English language or Spanish language when this article describes many different languages. It matches the format of Languages of China and Languages of Africa, and should not be changed. DAJF 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Existing article name has no problems, conforms to the pattern of other articles and all naming conventions. Proposed article name is ambiguous and inaccurate. Andrewa 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposed name is inaccurate; and I note that Hindi, for example, does not follow the alleged pattern, which is only a system of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. and what? Only those people who doesn't even have the basic knowledge about different languages spoken in India can request this move. Gnanapiti 16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Majorly disagree with this one. I mean are you going to group 500+ languages together and call them the "Indian Language." --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is no such thing as "The Indian language" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I support. It should be move to Indian language so it matches the other language-type articles like English language, Spanish language, etc. FinaleFever 05:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing section order

I suggest switching the position of "Official Languages" and "Classical langs of India" sections. What say thee? Amit@Talk 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

map title?

Why does the map title say people's republic of china in chinese? 154.20.115.35 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Map needed

Can we get a map showing the locations of the actual languages (not language families)? 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Austro-Asiatic

It needs to be stated which language(s) are Austro-Asiatic in India (the purple areas on the map). 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move back to "Languages of India"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Station1 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The present title ("Languages of Republic of India") is ungrammatical, the earlier one is clear and concise. ～J.K. 11:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Was any reason given for not restoring the original title? Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. ～J.K. 07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of that and subsequent arguments, changed from weak to to unqualified support. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It's clear and it's what the article is about. — AjaxSmack 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. On 23 July "Languages of India" was changed to "Languages of the Indian subcontinent"; on 27 July it was reverted and immediately changed to "Languages of Republic of India", all without discussion. "Languages of India" is in line with articles on the languages of many other nations. Station1 (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Total speakers for each language

As suggested at Talk:List of Indian languages by number of native speakers, it would be useful to have a "List of Indian languages by total number of speakers", which could either be separate or integrated. Right now, it's impossible to use Wikipedia data answer questions like, "What fraction of the population can speak English?" because second and third languages aren't counted. -- Beland (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

kerala demand!

I believe demand by kerala for classical status for malayalam is certainly encyclopedic and provides a better context to the classical status of languages in India. Not including it is violation of WP:NPOV. Docku: What up? 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerela's demand may be encyclopaedic , but not the opinion of a politician questioning the classicalness of Kannada and Telugu. Cant accomodate the views of every Tom-dick-harry on wikipedia.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the comments by a politician. There are millions of people who have their own opinions. Wiki is the not the place for it, unless one is trying to forward an opinion, which would fail WP:SYN.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is no authority on this issue. However, it is important to write that kerala demand was result of granting of status to Kannada and Telugu. Docku: What up? 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Docku, you are unfortunately still trying to forward an opinion. Please start an Rfc and get concensus if you want to include the opinion of a politician. There are no shortage of opinions by Karnataka politicians about Tamil getting a classical status. Has that been included? No.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even the opinion of Geogre Hart regarding Tamil sould not be included because it is qualified by a statement about other languages, which is clear WP:SYN on part of whoever put it there. At the end of the day, it does not matter what Chief minister of Kerela thinks about Kannada/Telugu. Is it official or not? That is what matters. Just because classical status for Malayalam is being demanded does not degrade Tamil/Kannada/Telugu/Sanskrit. If Malayalam is classical, it will be accorded that status, and lets all be happy for Kerela. Anyone who reads the concerned discussion on Talk:India will see that this is pure POV material, and an attempt to deride a few Indian languages, which will fail any Rfc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Wikipedia says nowhere that the opinion of a notable politician, which is reported by reliable sources, and quoted to boot, is not notable. When I reverted user:DK's previous edit which had cited newspapers, the reason for the reversal was not the fact of citing newspapers, but rather the different criteria of antiquity reported by the newspapers. Official status, as a classical language, is no more reliable than the usual definition of classical languages in the secondary literature. There, in Google Scholar, for example, I might note, there is scant evidence in the literature of the last two centuries that Kannada is regarded as a classical language. All 63 links there refer to Sanskrit or Tamil as the classical language concerned. In one of the links, B. M. Srikantaiah, the major Kannada poet says it all, when he refers to

“ English as 'our cultural and political language', Sanskrit as 'our spiritual and classical language' and Kannada 'our native and speaking language' ... ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ec(undent) - The gentlemen quoted have no locus standi on the issue. If they want to plead Malayalam's case, they're free to file formal requests with the concerned ministry of the GoI. As Ambika Soni noted, there are no pending demands from anybody at the moment. Wikipedia is no place to parade these gentlemen's ignorance. Sarvagnya 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia says nowhere that a language becomes classical by virtue of a Government's declaration. If there is a learned committee of members who have made this decision, where is the published literature (by them or by others) that says so in internationally recognized peer-reviewed scholarly works? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask your questions to the Govt of India. If your arguement is valid, then none of the listed classical dances in the India article should remain. How about that?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see valid points raised by Docku, Sarvagnya, F&f and Dinesh. I concur with Sarvagnya n Dinesh and feel quoting Kerala polictician is WP:UNDUE. Rather a single (or two) sentence(s) like "the announcement faced opposition in Kerala" etc should suffice. I just wish we could lay our hands on the criteria laid by the GoI! I support F&f on the renaming the title ==Official classical languages== as ==Classical languages== is ambiguous. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if the "anonucement faced opposition" if you see the multiple newspapaer citations. Some Kerala politicians did not like Malayalam being left out, while Kannada and Telugu were included. But why should that opposition or their displeasure be introduced here. This is not a newspaper. Its an encyclopaedia. If and when Kerela government makes a formal request to the Ministry of Culture, with all necessary documentation and research, then its probably worth mentioning that Kerela's request is pending at the ministry. That is how this topic should be approached. It is not an issue of derision or ridicule (that some users have tried to make this into) but a natural competitive process between neighbouring states. Were all the classical dances declared classical at the exact same time? If they were not, does it make the later declared dances less worthy? Were all the folk and theatre arts of India so desinated at the same time? If not, are some lesser than others? Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, even an official and formal request by the Kerela government with the Ministry is not worthy of mention here (perhaps on the Malayalam page). There must be dozens of formal requests, including inclusion in scheduled language list, and wiki cant accomodate each and every request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to stay away and thought would throw in my two cents as KHP2 stepped in made a fair assessment. I really wish that we could lay our hands on the criteria used by GOI for according status. But, my guess is GOI will not make it explicitly available to outsiders given the sensitivity of the issue. This report kind of affirms the notion that antiquity was decreased from 2000 to 1500 to 1000 years. Inherent dangers section in the article just makes one feel sad about the state of affairs in India and wish that politicians were more sensible and I dare question the intelligence of anyone who started this mess in the first place.

No one is deriding any language. My point is, it is clearly political issue and political opposition and opinions are encyclopedic. It is interesting you view this whole issue as a "natural competitive process". It kind of "rhymes" with "political".

Well, If you dont or dont want to recognise this as a political issue, we will probably not see eye to eye on this issue.Docku: What up? 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No news paper proofs please. I have already provided a citation from the ministry of culture, regarding the criterea for classicalness, citation #18.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article which states more a thousand years as the criteria. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no newspaper proof? 18th ref is a 2006 news release and Kannada was accorded status on 2008. 18th ref confirms the downgrading of 2000 to 1500 which supposedly happened in 2006. I dont expect a 2006 news release to confirm what happened in 2008. On the other hand, we have a newspaper ref which confirms 1500 to 1000. This report is also confirmed by this report by The telegraph (as KHP2 pointed). Well, my question is, do you not recognise this as language politics to appeal to the votebank? Docku: What up? 16:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the word "downgraded" in that GOI citation. The citation standards cant change to forward an opinion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

@Docku - I can show you more than a few citations from the same newspapers(one of which is already on the Talk:India page) that the antiquity requirement was raised after Kannada and Telugu demands came. Also, read the citations closely and you'll realise that there was no committee of linguistic experts at all that went over Tamil's case. Tamil was accorded the status in keeping with the promise made to DMK by the Congress before there was even a "Official classical languages" category, let alone 'eligibility criteria'.

To facilitate this (ie., according Tamil the status), the govt., referred to the Sahitya Akademi which in turn came up with some requirements which curiously mirrored those set out by Hart in his letter to somebody (Annamalai? Maraimalai?). The Sa. Ak further recommended that a new category of "Classical languages" be created to facilitate the process and the govt., did it... apparently in deference of the Akademi's opinion.

However when the govt., got petitions from Telugu and Kannada, not only did they raise the eligibility criteria but also decided to refer the matter this time to a Committee of Linguistic Experts (and not the litterateurs of the SA) - a standard of rigor that didnt exist when T was accorded the status. And this Comm. of Linguists had on board, among others, the likes of Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi. It is only after these experts recommended the tag to these languages that the Govt., decided to confer it upon them.

Here again, there was a delay due to the strong arm tactics of "Tamil enthusiasts" who decided to throw a spanner in the works. It was this inordinate delay by a "secular" govt., which had yet again decided to "prostitute its soul at the altar of oppurtunistic coalition politics" that the governments of K and AP protested. As for these clueless gentlemen and their like-minded friends, they can feel free take up the issue with the GoI and/or the experts. Wikipedia, however cannot play host to their whining. Sarvagnya 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I dont want to go back and forth with twisted facts and uncited references, I dont have time for that. I just have one question for you. If I were to ask you to rate Kannada, Telugu, Sanskrit and Tamil in the order of literary antiquity, independent literary tradition, how would you rate it? Docku: What up? 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sarvagnya and Dinesh here. Come on, the status has been granted. Wikipedia is about stating facts. And the fact is GoI has conferred "classical status" to Kannada and Telegu. Whether some people are not satisfied with the decision is not our concern. As for the criteria lets wait for the next Press Information Release. Lets bury this matter. (at least for now!). --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KHP2, Sarvagnya and Dinesh on the issue. GOI has granted and let us include it in this page. GOI status has its own intrinsic encyclopedic value. I, however, thought we were talking about including the dilution of years of antiquity and Kerala opposition. Apparently, you dont think it is encyclopedic? Well, in my opinion, dilution of antiquity (if not Kerala opposition) is not just encyclopedic but fundamental. I dont agree with Sarvagnya and Dinesh that it wasnt diluted at all. I am also not so sure about the press release, it may actually never happen (again for political reasons), we just have to deal with available reliable secondary sources.

The conversation was diverted by Sarvagnya to Tamil and therefore I had to ask him that question, as his answer (I believe) would explain the several questions he had asked in his last message. Hope he will answer to it. You know what, sometimes I am just replying because I cant resist the temptation. I guess we all do. If you all want to stop the conversation here, I am fine. Docku: What up? 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, Docku, K. Satchidanandan, the Chairman of India's Sahitya Akademi (The National Academy of Letters) from 1996 to 2006, who seems to be an internationally known poet, says (according to The Hindu newspaper link of November 2, 2008 you provided above):

“ “I said, with the language politics obtaining in India, the question was sure to be politicised and the declaration of any language as classical by the government would open a Pandora’s box leading to claims and counter-claims to classical status. But we were coerced to form a committee that recommended granting (of) classical status to any language that is proved 1,500 to 2,000 years old and has a considerable body of ancient literature recognised by scholars as maintaining a high standard and capable of being an example of excellence for generations.

“But at some point the decision was diluted and it was declared that 1,000-1,500 years of existence is enough for a language to be declared classical, of course with the accompanying provisions. Naturally there were more claimants to the status and it gave the State governments a chance to manipulate their people’s natural love of their language and to bargain with and even to threaten the government of India and thus win popular support within the states.

“Now that Kannada and Telugu also have been declared classical – subject to the court decision in the ongoing case – many more claimants are sure to come up with all kinds of evidences from manuscripts to stone edicts.

”

Keep your eyes peeled. I am guessing sooner or later the details will be outed. What criteria were used by the Government of India to make this declaration of classical status, and whether the criteria were the same for all languages, is important for this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break

OK Docku. Here you go - sources and all Sarvagnya 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

@Docku - I can show you more than a few citations from the same newspapers(one of which is already on the Talk:India page) that the antiquity requirement was raised after Kannada and Telugu demands came.[1][2][3][4] Also, read the citations closely and you'll realise that there was no committee of linguistic experts at all that went over Tamil's case. Tamil was accorded the status in keeping with the promise made to DMK by the Congress before there was even a "Official classical languages" category, let alone 'eligibility criteria'.([5][6][7] To facilitate this (ie., according Tamil the status), the govt., referred to the Sahitya Akademi which in turn came up with some requirements which curiously mirrored those set out by Hart in his letter to somebody (Annamalai? Maraimalai?). The Sa. Ak further recommended that a new category of "Classical languages" be created to facilitate the process and the govt., did it... apparently in deference of the Akademi's opinion. At this point the Sa. Ak. flatly refused to be a part of this and recommended that the govt., should not take it upon itself to accord such a status to languages. However, due to the "pressure" (in the words of the same "world famous" Malayali poet Satchidanandan who is still frothing today) brought upon the govt., by the DMK, the Akademi was in turn pressured by the govt., to play ball. The Akademi had to finally yield and they, rather reluctantly, came up with a set of criteria which stipulated 1500 years.[8] Curiously however, while announcing that Tamil had been accorded the tag, the 1500 years had become 1000 years.[9][10] This, probably is the "dilution" that Satchidanandan is talking about now. However when the govt., got petitions from Telugu and Kannada, not only did they raise the eligibility criteria but also decided to refer the matter this time to a Committee of Linguistic Experts (and not the litterateurs of the SA)[11][12][13][14] - a standard of rigor that didnt exist when T was accorded the status. And this Comm. of Linguists had on board, among others, the likes of Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi.[15]. In order to make their case before the Centre's committee of linguists, the Karnataka and AP governments constituted their own expert committees. The Karnataka expert group was manned by Dr. Chidananda Murthy, Prof. L S Sheshagiri Rao, Dr. N. S. Taranath, and B. B. Rajapurohit.[16] These experts painstakingly put together a 300 page report[17] which was submitted to the centre's committee of Linguists. The AP experts (of the "SOLC") also submitted their own report arguing Telugu's case. The committee of linguists (which included, among others, Bh. Krishnamurthy and K. V. Subba Rao of Delhi Univ) went over these reports and only then did they recommend the tag to these languages.[18] And it was only after getting these experts' nod that the govt., decided to award the tag to the two languages. Here again, there was a delay due to the strong arm tactics of "Tamil enthusiasts" who decided to throw a spanner in the works.[19] It was this inordinate delay by a "secular" govt., which had yet again decided to "prostitute its soul at the altar of oppurtunistic coalition politics" that the governments of K and AP protested. As for these clueless gentlemen and their like-minded friends, they can feel free take up the issue with the GoI and/or the experts. Wikipedia, however cannot play host to their whining.

And since you apparently cannot be bothered to do your research before patronisingly dismissing others work - I've put together a collection of quotes from various sources. Next time, please do your homework before you land on Talk pages arguing one way or the other. Kannada and Telugu and perhaps everything South Indian may be 'exotica' to you and a bunch of others here, but it is not so for me. Nor is Wikipedia and its policies. So don't you try throwing the rulebook at me.

Meanwhile, the Director of the Mysore-based Central Institute of Indian Language, Udayanarayan Singh, who is a member of the committee of experts constituted for the purpose by the Centre, has stated in his report that Kannada fulfils the requisite criteria. The four criteria are: antiquity of early texts, recorded history of over 1,000 years (the period was subsequently increased to 1,500 years); a body of ancient literature, texts that are considered a valuable heritage by generations of speakers; a literary tradition that is original and not borrowed from any other speech community; and the classical language and literature could be distinct from its current form or could be a discontinuous one with its own forms or its off shoots. - The Hindu, Sep 15 2008 Taking a cue from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka too made claims for the classical tag to Telugu and Kannada. The two States, however, faced an uphill task because when they made the claim, the Union government enhanced the eligibility period of antiquity of languages from 1,000 to 1,500-2,000 years. 'The Hindu - Nov 1 2008 .... It delved into records and took photographs of several edicts as historical evidence and submitted the claim before the seven-member “Linguists’ Committee” of the Ministry of Culture. The committee which has two Telugu experts as members -- Bh. Krishnamurthy, former Vice-Chancellor, University of Hyderabad, and K. V. Subba Rao of Delhi University... - The Hindu - Nov 1 2008 The minister said there were no languages pending with the committee seeking classical status. - would somebody be so kind as to forward this piece of news to Comrade Achutanandan and his Guv please? ...Ever since the UPA government accorded the classical status to Tamil on September 17, 2004 in its very first Cabinet meeting following a demand from the Tamil Nadu government ruled by the DMK, the Centre had kept the proposal from the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh governments pending. ...The Centre later formed a committee to determine the eligibility of the languages to be considered for classification as classical. As per a parliamentary reply, these criteria included high antiquity of its early texts/recorded history of over 2000 years (this was 1,000 years earlier, changed to 2,000 years after demands from Kannada and Telugu came);... While these two states kept up the campaign, Tamil enthusiasts did their best to sabotage the Telugu and Kannada campaign insisting that Tamil is the oldest spoken language in the world and that Telugu and Kannada should not be placed on the same pedestal. Mukhyamantri Chandru Chairperson, Kannada Development Authority “Four years ago, Central Gover nment had given the classical status to Tamil. At that time, there was no technical committee. ...It was purely based on pressure exerted by the Tamil Nadu government. Later, the Central government set a few guidelines and criteria for a language to get the status, like it should have 1,500 years of recorded history and that the language should not be influenced by any other language. In keeping with the promise made in the Common Minimum Programme, the Union Cabinet today decided to create a new category of languages as "classical languages" and declare Tamil as the first language under the category... ...Jaipal Reddy, said the formation of a separate category of classical languages had been recommended by an experts committee under the Sahitya Akademi. It had also recommended a set of criteria for declaring a language as classical and accepted a proposal to declare Tamil as the first such language - The Hindu Sep 18 2004 The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had promised this in its Common Minimum Programme agenda for governance. ...The criteria for declaring a language as classical language are that it should be of great antiquity and should have its early texts dating back at least 1,000 years. The Sahitya Akademi office bearers told the government three months ago -- when the move was first made -- that it would be unwise to grant such recognition to just one language in a country of such diversity. The government replied that the UPA had promised the classical status for Tamil in its Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and the experts had to find some way of implementing the promise. The Sahitya Akademi office bearers wrote a second time. In essence, they repeated that it was not the government?s business to declare a language ?classical?. ?It is a classically foolish move,? a source said. But the government brought pressure on the committee through the bureaucrats representing the ministries. Despite that, the committee decided that ?it did not want to play into the hands of the government and decided to make space for other languages to be included,? a source in the committee said. Members of the committee felt that the pressure was being brought on it because of the compulsions of the Congress and the UPA government to appease its ally, M. Karunanidhi?s DMK. The Centre, which had accorded classical status to Tamil, unconditionally, owing to political pressure, had formulated rules that insisted on a 1,000-year history of a language as a basic criterion for granting ‘classical’ status. Later it was enhanced to 1,500 years.

Oh and as for your question requesting my opinion about literary antiquities, I can only repeat to you what Nilakanta Shastri proclaimed - "Literature in all Dravidian languages owes a great deal to Sanskrit, the magic wand whose touch raised each of the languages from a level of patois to that of a literary idiom".

Equally true, however is also the fact that each of these languages have come a long way since then and have developed into truly classical languages with distinct classical registers. Along the way, they have also influenced each other and other languages a great deal, though obviously not on the scale that Sanskrit has.

In other words, K and Te may be deemed classical by whatever yardstick Tamil may be deemed classical. And that is precisely what the Committee of Linguists decided. If you want citations for that, go ask Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi and the other experts. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks. huh. Sarvagnya 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You havent answered my question though. You seem to have very strong opinions about these languages. Anyway, Could you pls rate the four languages in terms of literary antiquity and independent tradition????? I will post my reply to your comments later once i get an answer to this question. My answer to your comments is very much dependent on this rating.

Something like

1. language1
2. language2
3. language3
4. language4

Thanks. Docku: What up? 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Patently unscholarly as this exercise may be, let me humor you for a bit. Here you go - 1. Sanskrit 2. Kannada, Tamil, Telugu. Sarvagnya 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 2

Perhaps Mr. Sarvagnya would like to write to Prof. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, learned member of the Distinguished Committee of Expert Linguists, and kindly ask him to make some corrections in his magnum opus, Dravidian Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2003. On page 22 of his life's work, Prof. Krishnamurti has stated that Tamil literature is more than 2000 years old (and, to boot, "has much that is original"), Kannada's 1100 years old, and Telugu's only 900 years old. Perhaps Prof. Krishnamurti would like to explain why in order to give Tamil the classical status it was required to lower the "Antiquity requirement" to 1000 years, and likewise, why, for Kannada and Telugu, it had to be raised to 2,000 years. There are some other errors too: apparently, Prof. Krishnamurti seems to think that Tamil hasn't borrowed as much from Sanskrit as Kannada and Telugu have. For ease of reference here is the Professor in his own words:

“ 1. Tamil (true native name Tamiz; other names Malabari, Dravidi, Tamul, Aravam). Pop. 53,006,368; 3.35 million in Sri Lanka and over 2 million in South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji and Burma. Cave inscriptions (some seventy-six) in Tamil Brahmi script were found in Madurai and Tirunalveli districts c. second century BC (Mahadevan 1971: 83–4). The first known work, Tolkappiyam, is a treatise on grammar and poetics ascribed to the early pre-Christian era, presupposing a large body of literature before it, available in the form of anthologies. Although the influence of early Sanskrit grammars (fifth century BC) is obvious in certain grammatical concepts like Tamil kalam "tense, time" (Sanskrit kala- "time, tense"), Tamil peyar "name" for the noun (Sanskrit naman- "name, noun"), Tamil verrumai "separation, division" for "case" (Sanskrit vibhakti- "case marker", literally "division"), there is much that is original in Tolkappiyam. As in the case of Pre-Modern Greek and Arabic, Tamil has "diglossia" (Ferguson 1964), which means that the standard written and spoken variety of Tamil, called centamiz "beautiful Tamil", is based on the classical language of an earlier era and not on any of the contemporary regional dialects. ... 2. Malayalam (Malayazma). Pop. 30,377,166; west-coast dialect of Tamil till about the ninth century AD; official language of Kerala stage. The Vazappalli inscription of Rajasekhara of the ninth century AD is considered the earliest document (Gopalakrishnan 1985: 31). The first literary work is Ramacaritam (c. twelfth century) and the first grammar, Lilatilakam (fourteenth century), written in Sanskrit. More than Kannada and Telegu, and unlike Tamil, Malayalam has borrowed liberally from Sanskrit, not only words but even inflected words and phrases. ... 3. Kannada (Kanarese, Canarese, Karanataka). Pop. 32,753,676; the official language of Karnataka state; the first inscription is dated 450 AD by Kadamba Kakutstha Varma from Halmidi, Belur Taluq, Mysore district; the first literary work Kavirajamarga, a treatise on poetics, belongs to the ninth century; S'abdamanidarpana is the first comprehensive grammar written in Kannada (thirteenth century). ... 4. Telugu (Telugu, Tneugu, Andhram, Gentoo, Wadugu, Warugi). Pop. 66,017,615; official language of Andhra Pradesh. Telugu place names occur in Prakrit inscriptions from the second century AD onwards. The first Telugu inscription is dated 575 AD from Erragudipadu of the Kadapa district by a prince of the Coda dynasty; the first literary work, a poetic translation of a part of the Mahabharata, belongs to the eleventh century AD. ”

Perhaps this process is like limbo dance, the lower the requirement, the harder it is. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarise. Sanskrit, Kannada, Tamil and Telugu rated in order of antiquity and indepednent literary tradition

According to Sarvagnya and may be some scholars from Karnataka

1. Sanskrit
2. Kannada, Tamil and Telugu

According to Bhadriraju Krishnamurti and rest of the mainstream scholars

1. Sanskrit
2. Tamil
3. Kannada
4. Telugu

Under these circumstances, while it makes me exhaustingly happy to accept the decision made by GoI according classical status, I find it hard to understand Sarvagnya's argument why antiquity cut-off would be increased to accord classical status for Kannada and Telugu and not the other way around. Docku: What up? 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

user:Kalarimaster, Since I subscribe to 1RR, I won't revert you, but from the time the section on "Classical languages of India" was first introduced on this page a year and a half ago, to the same time last year, to six months ago, to until as recently as [ November 6], no mention was made of the Government of India's criteria. The only criteria that have been mentioned during this period of 18 months are the ones of George L. Hart, which are also to be found also in the lead of Wikipedia's page Classical language. Even when the Government's criteria of 2006 introduced by user:Dineshkannambadi in this edit, the Government's criteria were at the end not in a separate section, and so they had remained until you chose to make your edit. Need I remind you that this page has long been a controversial page.

Need I also remind you that Wikipedia's injunction to be bold comes with important caveats, that among these are:

“ Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, ... should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, ... If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, ... ”

• You have not sought any such consensus; moreover, in the edit in which you made these changes, the edit summary only said: "structure," and provide no clue why such a major change of order of presentation (and therefore of emphasis was being attempted). Will you explicitly state here what you are attempting with providing that structure in that order, and why you have consensus for this edit?
• I had initially supported changing the name of the section to "Official classical languages" from "Classical languages," however, this section has a long history and is meant to be linked to the Wikipedia page classical language, so we can't make it only about official classical languages; consequently even if there was consensus to have a separate section for criteria, and to have that section precede the other section, there is no reason why George L. Hart's criteria that occur in the lead of the classical language page shouldn't come first. Will you explicitly state here why you have only included the Government's criteria of 2006 and not the criteria mentioned in Wikipedia's page on classical languages?

I will look forward to hearing your explanations here. I would recommend that you restore the section to its previous "structure" until such time as these issues have been resolved. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point 1: The structure should be logical. This means, the reader need to be informed, why these languages were classified as classical languages. If somebody reads, Kannada, Telugu, nobody has a clue, maybe never heard of these languages in their lives, why these languages were accorded that status. The criteria gives the answers immediately after he/she read the statement. That's why the structure should be implemented as I have introduced.

Answer to point 2: I see no relevance for the classical statement of G L Hart in the government introduced classical languages category. When Hart gave that statement, the criteria for classical languages of India were different, as far as I know, the recorded history had to be at least 2000 years old, and that's when Tamil was declared the status. After this declaration, the government put the dating infront to 1500 years to declare Sanskrit as classical language. (I have a news article reference for this.) Soon after that declaration Kannada and Telugu came up with their request. So, where is now the relevance of G L Hart in all this? The criteria was laid down by governments institutions, associations whatsoever - not an international expert group. And this is how this should be handled, it's a matter of India alone, not of the world. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of classical languages section

The title of this section was simply "Classical languages" until I and a few other people (after discussion on Talk:India) changed it to "Official classical languages." However, clearly, given the history and content of the page, and given its links to the Wikipedia page classical languages, it can't be just about the official languages. I am therefore proposing that we change the section title back to "classical languages," which it had remained for over a year and a half. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already a page "Official languages of India." There is a good reason why this section is not included there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm against this move. This makes it "international". The thing is, that India has its own criteria, not compatible with the international view.--Kalarimaster (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

kalarimaster, you just dont get it. There is only one standard, academical standard which you choose to call "international". This standard involves high level of antiquity and independence in literature. This standard has to be mentioned first and fore and any deviation from that for according classical status to Indian languages should be mentioned accurately and explicitly. It would be better off for people who dont understand how wikipedia works and what classicality is to just lay it off. I support moving to classical languages again. Docku: What up? 18:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No Docku, there are two standards, the western international standard, and the Indian standard. This is nothing unencyclopedical.--Kalarimaster (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Classicity"

take care not to confuse this "classical language of India" label with the common concept of a classical language. They are without direct relation.

• In common use, a classical language is a specific stage within a language's history. For Sanskrit, this is Classical Sanskrit (say, 400 BC to 600 AD). Sanskrit texts before or after this period are pre-classical or post-classical. Similarly, "Classical Tamil" is the language of the Sangam literature. Any Tamil text post-dating 600 AD or so isn't classical but post-classical.
• the 2004 "classical language of India" label doesn't make this distinction. It just declares "Sanskrit" or "Tamil" as "classical" by definition. This is an issue of language politics and has nothing to do with the notion of a classical stage discussed at classical language.

--dab (𒁳) 09:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be also a section of the non-scheduled languages

I will try to find the list. --Kalarimaster (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

list of languages of India? --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Languagepanel.jpg

The image File:Languagepanel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Andaman and Nicobars Island

Acording to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_languages_of_India the official language is Hindi, and not Tamil as mention in this article. I also remember more people speaking hindi than tamil on my visit there last summer... But I am not 100% sure, so I don't edit it - hope others will do it after a full research --77.212.188.15 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Truce term

Can anybody help me please with what Indian children use as a truce term or word use to call a temporary halt to a game for respite? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Input needed for strategic planning process

hi everyone, as you all may know Wikimeida is in the midst of its strategic planning process (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for more information). As part of this process, I have been developing a fact base on South Asian languages and their Wikipedias. The purpose of this fact base is to help the Wikimedia community understand the importance of South Asian languages as they develop strategies to expand the reach of Wikimedia worldwide as well as to discuss the specific barriers to growth of South Asian language projects. If any of you are also editors of the South Asian language Wikipedias, I would really appreciate it if you took some time to look at what I've put together and make any changes or additions that you thought were appropriate. It would be especially great if anyone had some thoughts or ideas to add to the section on barriers to growth of South Asian language Wikipedias. I want to make sure that we have the most accurate information possible to inform the strategic plan as it is developed. This is the link http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reach/Regional_Analysis Thanks!!! Sarah476 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dogri language

The Dogri article states the language has 2 million speakers, but the chart in this article states 0.1 million -- seems like a problem. . . --71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the other 1.9 million are in Pakistan. --Heron (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

addition by anon

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_India&diff=344391159&oldid=343969275. Is Tamil really the ancient living language in India in terms of script or literature? --CarTick 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he is referring to Adichanallur inscriptions Though ASI and Iravatham Mahadevan have commented on its similarity to Tamil Brahmi, i don't think it has been accepted in scholarly circles yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems something funny[20] is going on. Deccan Chronicle has a confusing report from a clueless correspondent. Usually hindu does a good job with either T. S. Subramanian or Srivathsan writing articles related to Tamil history and archaeology. But there is no report in Hindu about this. I will mail the varalaaru.com people if they know what happened to the report on the Script. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Soda. What about in terms of literature antiquity? --CarTick 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh there we will enter even murkier water of dating Tolkappiyam. While Tamil "nationalists" try to push its age back before Common Era, Other language "nationalists" (Kannada, Sinhalese for example) try to bring it down to 8th Century CE. Totally murky picture there. Since it is the oldest piece of surviving Tamil lit, It gets such treatment. So if the later view is taken into consideration, sangam literature itself is dated to somewhere near earliest Kannada literature and Tamil loses the claim to being the "earliest living language". One often finds much mirth in the history pages of language articles :-) --Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[Outindent]Curiouser and curiouser [21]. Now Mahadevan says it has disappeared from Mysore ASI. It is similar to an old conspiracy theory of Tamil "nationalists" - Kannadigas destroy epigraphical evidence which pushes age of Tamil back.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

interesting, the battle is between Tamil and Kannada then. It is a shame what is happening. Indian government probably doesnt care. well, what happens then if we remove the estimation from pseudo-Tamil and Kannada historians. --CarTick 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Largest spoken language in India

Telsam143 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)12/03/2010 Telugu Language is the Second Largest Spoken Language in India. It is predominantly spoken in different parts of India which includes Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Kerala, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and parts of Southern Maharastra.

25% Speak dravidian languagess?

It is "spoken by around 200 million people"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages) Then how come it has become 25% of the 1,028,610,328(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India), So it would be more than 250 millions(2571525822) ????? This is plain Stupid. RANJITH, BANGALORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.52.183 (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd paragraph has conflicting information

From the paragraph in question:

"The constitution of India states that "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script."[4] Neither the Constitution of India nor Indian law specifies a national language..."

Please fix or clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.125.52 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. India has "Official" languages and no "national" languages. There is clear distinction between the two in indian context.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

English language section

Youngson (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Given that this article is on English Wikipedia, it seems only natural for there to be a section on only the English language. That is because English Wikipedia is perused over by English speakers who like myself might be curious about the state of play of the English language in India and don't necessarily want to read the whole article to get to this. Just saying.Youngson (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

In Section language conflicts , central government overstepping its constitutional authority is not neutral. Also it doesn't make sense making Central Government sounds like an external entity. Anyone? Anu Raj (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think the reader would know that these are not facts, but the opinions of those who oppose compulsory teaching of Hindi. But if you feel that is not the case, then just add something to make it clear this is an opinion. Perhaps a quote from someone? The paragraph is about conflict; one expects it to describe a point of view. It would be better to show who is opinioning what. Rather then "Central Government" perhaps it should say "Federal Goverment". How do they refer to it in India? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

• Flesh out the main body of the article. How about a set of tables giving the number of people speaking each language as their first tongue?
• Each state should be listed in a table, with the first (and, if possible second) language(s) listed
• The detailed work on phonetics and alphabet should be moved to a sub-article once the main article has been expanded. It's really far too detailed to be of any use to a casual reader but I suspect it's not rigorous enough right now to avoid offending an expert.
• Despite the suggestions above, we should avoid turning this into a massive set of lists (which is what has happened to the Native American languages article)

Sadly, I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to act on my own suggestions here, so I'll go and try to be more useful somewhere else. However, I'd love to see this article get on the main page someday... Kayman1uk 10:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)this is one of the best countries in the whole world 121.216.195.93 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

FEEDBACK Regarding the second paragraph in this section: the point about Sanskrit seems a bit sudden. Sanskrit was not mentioned in the previous paragraph so it lacks context for readers (such as myself) with no previous knowledge. I suppose I'll go and look at the main article on "History" now, but I thought this feedback on readability might be useful. 121.216.195.93 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Looking at the continuous un referenced edits by IP users, I would suggest the page to be semi-protected. Comments anyone? Anu Raj (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hydronymy and ancient toponymy

Hallo to everybody here. I am interested in hydronyms and toponyms especially of the old world. I have read many articles in order to collect more and newer information on the subject. As I expected the issue of hydronymy is very vexed as it goes back to prehistoric times: German linguist Hans Krahe tried to give a systematic overview of the subject. After researching European hydronyms I started to look at those of India, Pakistan, Iran and Syria. I came to the provisional conclusion that the etymologies given by western scholars or local Asian erudites may in some instances be sometimes arbitrary and that perhaps there was indeed some sort of ancient unifying protolanguage behind them. An idea which is not new and was already floated by Italian linguists since the twenties and more recently by H. Krahe and T. Vennemann, who thinks of a Protovasconic substrate. I will give these instances that I find typical: Narmada (India): interpreted as "giver of pleasure" in Sanscrit (article). Looks instead to mean "river": from "nar" basis for river from Spain to Italy to Syria (and cfr. Arabic nahar, river) and south Indian languages nir(u/e). Alvand < *Harvant (article) from root *har high and band cognate to German bund group, league. Looks to be an instance of Krahe' Al(a)va+ant/d. Alborz (Mounts, Iran): interpreted as a corruption of Hara Barazati, Hara from a root *ser (article). Looks to be cognate with Albula fl. m., Albion (oros), Albioara fl. etc. Orontes (Syria); from ancient Persian "Haeravanta" that of the high (article). May be in fact from basis ur water common to Sumeric, Hittite and PIE. Urvent rich in water. Cfr. Tiliamentum (Italy) rich in tilium lime trees; Malamantus (Pakistan) rich in mountains from substrate basis mal very widespread throughout Europe; Maleventum/Maloeis now Benevento, place of rocks. The alternating of suffix -amentum/eventum was present already in Sanscrit, noted e.g. by A. L. Prosdocimi.

I append here below a list of names I consider interesting in this respect:

India: Mula, Hoara, Surma, Someshwari, Dorika, Son, Sarayu, Gori Ganga, Mandal, Sabari, Sileru, Varada, Sal, Savitri, Som, Sebarmati, Durduria, Dras, Neelum, Suru, Beas or Vipasha, Khambhat, Son/Saun/Sawan, Pamba, Mandovi, Ulhas.

Pakistan: Malir, Indus/Sindhus, Neelum, Soan/Swan/Sawan/Sohan, Haro, Lora Haro, Stora Haro, Neelan, Swat/Suvastu (Vedic), Sarayu (Vedic), Gauri (Vedic), Susoma Vedic, Sohan, Saraswati (Vedic).

Iran: Karum, Karkheh, Shaur, Sirwan, Ghareh Soo, Alwand, Mand, Shur, Aras, Balha, Tulun, Alamut.

Syria: Orontes, Wadi Jerrah, Barada, Awaj, Arwand.

Burma Salween/ (in Thai: Salwine/Salawin)

Thailand Swaria/Sawan

Cambodia Tonle' Saap

If anybody is interesated in the subject, I would be pleased to exchange information and opinions, relevant bibliography etc. Thank you for reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Other local languages and dialects" section: What's the point?

I noticed that the section "Other languages and dialects" appears to claim that all non-scheduled languages with more than 1 million speakers are dialects of Hindi or Oriya.

Meanwhile, it ignores the source it cites, in which at least the following non-Indo-Aryan languages have more than 1,000,000 speakers:

• Gondi - 2,713,790
• Kurukh - 1,751,489
• Tulu - 1,722,768
• Khasi - 1,128,575
• Mundari - 1,061,352
• Ho - 1,042,724

Additionally the Wagdi, Bhil, and Khandeshi languages are all Indo-Aryan languages with more than a million speakers which aren't Hindi or Oriya.

Am I missing something? If the point of the section is to list the Hindi "dialects" that may be separate languages, I'm pretty sure we have an article for that. If it's to list the most important non-scheduled languages, I'd note that that's partially covered in the "Inventory" section. (The omission of Kurukh and Tulu in that section, both of which may now have more than two million speakers now seems like an oversight, but one that could be easily remedied by lowering the cutoff to 1.5 million and/or finding more recent sources.) I'd fix the section to include these nine languages if I thought it were worth saving, but again, I don't really see why we have it in the first place. —Quintucket (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Languages of India/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Why stub class?== While the article is longer than a stub, the content seriously lacks relevant information beyond the lead. Also, the relatively good lead section deceptively hides the inadequacy of the rest of the article on a first glance. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) ==What is expected?== We need to implement the suggestions given at Talk:Languages of India#Cleanup and Talk:Languages of India#Going forward. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Inflated number of languages in the 1961 census

Census results aren't always linguistically sound and therefore tend to be rather unreliable sources when it comes to determining the number of languages in a given country. This is especially true when the census uses open-ended questions. Whenever you ask a crowd questions like "What is your mother tongue?", you're doomed to get unprecise, biased or even nonsensical replies. This is exactly what happened in the 1961 Indian census, which lists 124 native speakers of "Islami" as well as 118 "African", 77 "Canadian", 42 "Belgian", 39 "Congolese", 12 "Sikhi", 6 "Pakistan" and 5 "Prakrit" speakers. The number of languages is further inflated by including migrant languages such as Luxembourgish (with a whopping 2 speakers) or Latin (anyone who believed Latin was a dead language apparently never studied the Indian census of 1961). Let alone the dozens of village vernaculars declared by barely one or two folks. I think this should be pointed out in the article as readers might take those inflated, unscientific numbers for real. I made an attempt by shedding light on the ominous, much-quoted 1961 census numbers in a footnote. Feel free to rewrite it if you think it's not clear enough.--Colomen (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Urdu

This article would not be worth its salt if it ignores Urdu and doesn't explain the relationship between Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We'll add it during the INCOTM. In case we dont make it to INCOTM, let me have the refs & I'll add it! :)

AshLin (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Collaborations of the month -- 2014 December

This article has been chosen collectively for improvement by Wikiproject India editors here. Everyone is welcome to collaborate and make this a GA article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Oriya" or "Odia"

What's the policy on official name? I recall that it is to retain the most widely known name. I suggest we mention "Odia" in the beginning of the article but as per WP policy, other refs, especially not in an official context, it should be "Oriya". Comments please, AshLin (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer "Oriya" at all places, except at the first mention where we can put "or Odia" in parenthesis. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Prominent Languages of India - restricted to eight, i.e. six most spoken languages, English & Sanskrit

I have created short subsections for the most prominent or notable languages of India. One just cant list all the languages and have short sections of each. So I have restricted them to eight. The criteria has been taken arbitrarily, i.e., languages in this section have been restricted to those official languages spoken by over 50 million Indians or more, with the exception of English and Sanskrit, which are included due to their unique status/patronage. My apology to those who wished to see other languages listed here. My own mother tongue, Konkani, is not given a section of its own, for obvious reasons. Comments are welcome but please don't suggest a language just because its your mother tongue. AshLin (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi AshLin , i suggest you put Gujarati in place of Punjabi as it has a higher number of speakers (almost 1.5x of Punjabi). Yohannvt (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I wonder if we consider outside India too will then Punjabi be spoken by a larger number of people? (Not by people from Indian states living abroad but native people of Pakistan who speak it). I believe yes. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree to the way languages are being added - User:Satdeep gill has done exactly the same parochial thing that I warned against above. Consequently, people feel Gujarati with more speakers should also be there. Then someone else will say, "add XYZ". I have removed Punjabi. If more languages are to be added, then lets have a proper proposal about how many languages there should be listed here, with alternatives, and consensus building. I have no objection to adding a very few more, providing we have a rationale and consensus. Till then I'm defending the arbitrary choice of eight languages.

Secondly, this is an article about languages of India, not the diaspora nor the worldwide use of the languages. We go strictly as per WP:RS figures for number of speakers of languages in India, in this case, nothing tops Census of India figures, for the limited purpose of this issue under discussion.. AshLin (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Eight official languages spoken by over 50 million Indians or more, with the exception of English and Sanskrit" is acceptable. How do we make it into a formal proposal? I am for it, and you too, that makes two of us already. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Prominence is a flexible term. What makes a language prominent for one may not for another. Population alone can't be a criteria unless it is specifically stated so in the section heading.Holenarasipura (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason why English & Sanskrit are included & why the RFC in next section has been initiated! AshLin (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Excised unreferenced text : OR

I excised the text below for want of referencing. It is also not available in Languages with official status in India. If reliable sources can be provided, the text can be introduced. AshLin (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

When India became independent in 1947, the Indian legislators had the challenge of choosing a language for official communication as well as for communication between different linguistic regions across India. The choices available were:

• Making "Hindi", which a plurality of the people identified as their native language, the official language, though only a minority of these "Hindi" speakers spoke Hindi proper.
• Making English, as preferred by non-Hindi speakers, particularly Kannadigas and Tamils, and those from Mizoram and Nagaland, the official language. See also Anti-Hindi agitations.
• Declare both Hindi and English as official languages and each state is given freedom to choose the official language of the state.

RFC - Proposal regarding number of languages to be figured in the section "Prominent languages"

I have created short subsections for the most prominent or notable languages of India. One just cant list all the languages and have short sections of each. So I have restricted them to eight. The criteria has been taken arbitrarily, i.e., languages in this section have been restricted to those official languages spoken by over 50 million Indians or more, with the exception of English and Sanskrit, which are included due to their unique status/patronage. It is now intended to finalise the issue Wikipedia way - via consensus. AshLin (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In order to get consensus, I am listing three alternates.

• Proposal One - "Six official languages spoken by over 50 million Indians or more, plus English and Sanskrit - total 08"
  • (Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, + English, Sanskrit)
• Proposal Two - "Eleven official languages spoken by over 25 million Indians or more, plus English and Sanskrit - total 13"
  • (Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Punjabi + English, Sanskrit)
• Proposal Two Alpha - <same as two> but with English, Hindi & Sanskrit moved to the official languages section.
• Proposal Three - 4 languages (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu) + English, Sanskrit (vide Kautilya3).
• Proposal Four - One section per Scheduled Language (vide Holenarasipura)
• Proposal Five - No languages treated separately in this article.

Comments

My suggestion for Proposal Three: 4 languages (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu) + English, Sanskrit. I think all the other languages are more or less equal in status. It is hard to pick among them. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what above user means by "more or less equal in status" and what made him choose one of the above 4 over the others. As such, a language in India is given the status of "official language", regional or otherwise, only when it is considered prominent (large population, well established literary tradition etc.). However, if a choice has to be made between alternatives, Proposal two (15 languages) makes more sense.Holenarasipura (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I picked Hindi and Bengali for being the two largest languages in the subcontinent, and Bengali for its literary prominence as well. Tamil, for being a representative of Dravidian languages, and Urdu, for being a language spoken throughout India by a minority community. We can write interesting material about these languages that might wow the reader. I can't the same about the other languages. (By the way, if it matters, my own language is not among these four.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Any other proposals before we vote? AshLin (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Bengali and Urdu literature are relatively new and stand no comparison to some of India's classical languages:Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Oriya. Kannada and Telugu are also 3rd and 4th in that order w.r.t number of inscriptions and classics, after Sanskrit and Tamil. As such any discussion on this issue is purely POV as I pointed out earlier. So no matter what choice is made eventually, it is not going to be acceptable to all and this section of the article is bound to keep changing as time passes. The best solution is to be as inclusive as possible right now and avoid frequent churn. This is why I chose Prop 2 earlier. That's my two cents.Holenarasipura (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting

• Proposal One - "Six official languages spoken by over 50 million Indians or more, plus English and Sanskrit - total 08" - (Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, + English, Sanskrit)
• Proposal Two - "Eleven official languages spoken by over 25 million Indians or more, plus English and Sanskrit - total 13" - (Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Punjabi + English, Sanskrit)

1. Support AshLin (talk · contribs)
2. Support --AmritasyaPutra^{[[User talk:AmritasyaPutra|T]} 05:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Shrikanthv (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Holenarasipura (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Yohannvt (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support The Banner talk 14:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal Three - 4 languages (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu) + English, Sanskrit (vide Kautilya3).
• Proposal Four - One section per Scheduled Language (vide Holenarasipura)
• Proposal Five - No languages treated separately in this article.

1. Support Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. Discussing language family would be sufficient I feel. All languages have their own articles. --Tito☸Dutta 14:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on voting

• Comment on Proposal 5 - with that can we still take this article to GA status? Curious, because I felt that is important and one of the goals we want with important articles of India. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is this an option then ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@AshLin: Can you treat my comment as a comment on the 5th option itself, and not on the vote by User:Vigyani. My comment came as soon as I saw the item, but at that time you had already voted @Vigyani:. Hope that clarifies. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on voting - half the month is over just in deciding this, for the collaboration? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Don't look at me! I'm editting daily. AshLin (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• @AshLin: it was not a comment against you or any particular editor, but a wake-up call for all of us editors who wanted to collaborate... VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Closing the RFC

Due to lack of input for last 72 hours on this RFC, I propose to close it tomorrow evening earliest after 1800 hours IST. Be sure to express your opinion before that. AshLin (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Result

• The consensus for this RFC is Proposal Two - "Eleven official languages spoken by over 25 million Indians or more, plus English and Sanskrit - total 13" - (Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Punjabi + English, Sanskrit) AshLin (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apply Semi-protection

I request that this page should be semi protected by an administrator due to vandalism.Akhila3151996 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No mention of the Dravidian languages in the history section.

This] edit removed content on this, but I am not incline to just restore the whole thing. The dates are at odds with the Dravidian languages and the Tamil language article. The map could be restored as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Protest Against Hindi Imposition

Before Tamil Nadu people, Odia people held protest against Hindi imposition around 1890 ~ 1895 itself. Tamil Nadu people protest is big and have impact is true but we should not omit Odia people protest. --Kurumban (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan language family

"their inter-se relationships are not discernible"

What does "inter-se" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3097:1F0:4C97:C715:AF43:23A2 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to read "However, their interrelationships are not discernible". I assume this is what was intended. It was added with this edit by @AshLin:. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Richard-of-Earth's edit. AshLin (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hindi official language or not?

"The Constitution of India does not give any language the status of national language." then "Modern Standard Hindi is recognised as the official language of India ...." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the official language for official documents of the government of India. It being the official language of the government is no requirement for its use on any other level in the nation of India. If it was a national language, everyone would have to learn it and use it, so it is not. The two sentences are not contradictory. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

English needs to be mentioned before Hindi and such other Eighth Schedule languages in Official Languages of Union (or Central Government) Infobox?

I would like to suggest that English needs to be mentioned first before the other languages considering how even Article 343 of Constitution of Republic of India, describes that English has been and will continue to remain a Official Language of the Union (or Central Government).

• A principle then renewed by the Official Languages Act, 1963 which ensured English remained the primary official language even after the proposed period of fifteen years, and continues to be the grand old official Language of India.
  (, before Hindi was considered, and proposed for an "official" role being included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India too apart from mention in Article 343 . A role which it never assumed superseding English due to the Official Languages Act, 1963 taking effect via relevant section of Article 343.)

• Further, the most significant "Official" document, the Constitution, which is applicable to both the "Union" and the "States" which might have separate official language respectively, is also in English.
  (Apart from the language of any jurisprudence regarding the issue also naturally being in English.)

- 110.227.108.193 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Koda

Hello everyone, I am currently working on a project to know more about the language of Koda spoken in both India and Bangladesh, does anyone have any information on this language? Thank you!

Carmennnv (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Languages of India. 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/20140909000000/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708012438/http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf to http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041213203632/http://www.ciil.org/ to http://www.ciil.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Why so much blue text?

Why are the same words linked over and over? E.G. English and Persian.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of India. 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/20160604094122/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=MTUz to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=MTUz
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D23087%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D23084%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D26531%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217140013/http://indicpad.com/ to http://indicpad.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languages of India. 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/20141017024018/http://www.wwt-services.co.uk/translations/languages/gujarati-translation-216 to http://www.wwt-services.co.uk/translations/languages/gujarati-translation-216

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

the many languages of inda

India has over 75% different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.81.198 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

India is world language in tamil

2001:16A2:55FA:D461:311B:84F9:1106:CA3E (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the exact change you want made in the form of "Change X to Y." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

About Pali

Pali language is the oldest language of India , pakistan, Nepal Afganistan , and Bangladesh It's at least 600BC or much more SPhoolkumar (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dravidian languages have written records dating back to 6th century BCE.

Dravidian languages have written records dating back to 6th century BCE. 987654aay (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Dravidian languages says 2nd century BCE. You should edit there first and bring a citation. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNSOURCED. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

22 languages instead of 122 81.138.93.89 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This must be a misunderstanding. The figure is about the number of languages having more than 10,000 speakers, which is 122 per the 2010 census data, and has nothing to do with the number of scheduled languages. –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

About Marathi

In Goa, Konkani is the sole official language; however, Marathi may also be used for all official purposes. Kind request to remove the statement since Marathi isn't used for official purpose and also Marathi being a co-official language in goa since its still debatable and has caused a lot of hurt, misunderstanding to people of goa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goan Pav (talk • contribs)

 Not done This echoes what is said and cited in the Marathi language article and the Goa#Languages section. I will transfer the citation over. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Change

The Indian subcontinent is home to the third most spoken language in the world, Hindi-Urdu; the sixth most spoken language, Bengali; the thirteenth most spoken language, Punjabi; and the seventeenth most spoken language, Tamil. Itsmesindhu (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

To

The Indian subcontinent is home to the third most spoken language in the world, Hindi-Urdu; the sixth most spoken language, Bengali; tenth most spoken language Marathi; the thirteenth most spoken language, Punjabi; fifteenth most spoken language Telugu and the seventeenth most spoken language, Tamil Itsmesindhu (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference: the same Wikipedia page Itsmesindhu (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We don't need to add even more detail to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The information on this page is inaccurate, Telugu has a higher number of speakers than Tamil. Please change the information or else it doesn't make sense. Shivaradni999 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the whole sentence. It was not supported by the citation given per WP:UNSOURCED. It also was not "a summary of its most important contents" per MOS:LEAD. The subject of world languages is not addressed in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding map of India

Please rectify the map of India 103.161.31.188 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Official language of the Union" vs "national language"

These two sentences in the introduction are confusing to me. First Article 343 of the Constituion states that the Official language of the Union is Hindi and later a Gujurati Supreme Court contests this, stating (taken from reference):

But the court asked whether there was any notification saying Hindi is India's national language, for it's an ``official language of :this country. No notification ever issued by the government could be produced before the court in this regard. This is because the :Constitution has given Hindi the status of the official language and not the national language.

This needs to be reflected in the introduction. The paragraph is confusing and seems self contradictory otherwise. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead states Hindi alongside English is the official language of the government and not a national language. What did you want it to say? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The language map

The language map showing the hindi belt is misleading especially as the caption says it is the 1st language spoken in this area. It is the official language but the spoken languages are different. If you go to the area known Braj for example, it is partly in Uttar Pradesh and partly in Rajasthan. If you ask any local what their language is, they say Braj, not Hindi. If you see the actual raw data, all these are clubbed together under Hindi. Similarly there is Maithili, Bhojpuri that have a major presence in the eastern region that is claimed under Hindi. To the point where there is a huge flourishing Bhojpuri music industry. Images are the most powerful ways to communicate information. Needs to be done with care so that it does not perpetuate false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveri (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an article Hindi Belt and it uses a different map:

• 
  Currently on Languages of India
• 
  Currently on Hindi Belt

Perhaps we should change to that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Misleading

Hello ,

Where is the % of hindi speakers?

Should also include % who can speak hindi + their native language.

This page is full of misleading content.

And only 5% population of india is tamil speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.232.95 (talk)

It is in the article: Languages of India#2011 Census India. Also see List of languages by number of native speakers in India. The figures are based mostly on the 2011 census. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

171.49.131.238 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What is this use of wrong indian maps ❓

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)