Talk:Latvian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comma/cedilla

Although the Unicode names for these characters specify them as having cedillas, they are properly printed as commas instead. See [1] and [2]. — Ливай 02:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Closest and only?

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say Lithuanian is its "closest and only living relative." Besides the fact that Latvian is related to all of the Indo-Europoean languages, if distantly, how can something be both closest and only? It'd be like being my favorite and only sister. The qualifier "favorite," like "closest" makes no sense if "only" is true. NickelShoe 15:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I modified it to say "Of the Baltic languages, only Latvian and its closest relative Lithuanian remain." I think this is what was trying to be said, that Lithuanian is the closest relative of Latvian, even among the (mostly extinct) Baltic languages. I'm not particularly happy with my use of the word "remain." Though I think the meaning is clear, I've noticed a hesitance among others to refer to extinct languages in the past tense, so in that sense all languages exist in the present, whether or not they are used. But I think saying that only Latvian and Lithuanian are "used" sounds like the others are being used in closests or church services or something, personally, where "remain" gives a clearer sense of extinction of the other languages. NickelShoe 15:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the "However, while related, the Latvian and Lithuanian vocabularies vary greatly from each other and are not mutually intelligible." Some years ago I followed Estonian and Lithuanian boards as well and found after a while that I could manage understanding Lithuanian--it didn't seem that much more "foreign" than Latgalian. Linguistically, I find it difficult to support this statement as being accurate. Peters 06:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it may be too strong to say they are mutually unintelligible. Although I cannot understand spoken Lithuanian very much at all, I can at least get the gist of written Lithuanian (maybe it has to do with different accent?). I think the languages are as similar as, say, Portuguese and Spanish. I suppose it depends on what is meant by "unintelligible."--Zilonis 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i speak both Spanish and Portuguese and compared Latvian and Lithuanian is FAR MORE mutually UNINTELLIGIBLE..English and German or English and Dutch would be more appropriate comparison here so yea guess that makes them mutually unintelligible..and Latgalian is a different language not a dialect,but since it's more convenient for the Latvians to clasify it as a dialect and the Latgalians don't care in the least about the official staus of their language or culture..it's considered a dialect(just for the record i find many similarities between Lithuanian and Latgalian perhaps it's just that Latgalians weren't germanized as much as the rest ofLatvia) well anyway Latvian and Lithuanian are mutually unintelligible.

Gender

I assume that Latvian uses the more usual masculine/feminine system rather than something more exotic like common/neuter—this should be in the article. — Hippietrail 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

History

I'm curious about the "oldest known examples of written Latvian are from a 1530 translation of a number of hymns made by Nicholas Ramm, a German pastor in Riga" reference—I thought the earliest example was the Lord's Prayer from the Cosmologia Universalis. I'll have to dig up my references at home... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And there are earlier examples of Latvian written in runic form (as opposed to the transliterated to Germanic form), for example, engraving on Latvian zither (kokle), so we need to be clear about exactly what the earliest instance is—in this case the more accurate description (whether it's the hymns or the Lord's Prayer) would be the "earliest example of Latvian in printed form" (book). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed "number of hymns" from 1530 to "a hymn" because this apparently refers to one hymn by Ramm that is published in a Latvian psalmbook of 1615. In that psalmbook it is actually written that Ramm made that in the year 1530. It is of course possible that Ramm translated several hymns in that year, but apparently they have not survived or at least it is difficult to date them. Furthermore it is somewhat dubious whether the extant, printed text is exactly same as the original translation since it is 85 years younger. Therefore, I think it would be better solution to say that Lord's prayer in the 1550 version Cosmographia is the oldest text in Latvian. I think that existence of ancient runic texts in Latvian is not generally accepted by the scientific community. 213.216.208.231 10:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Cosmologia Universalis editions ranged from...

• in German between 1544 and 1628;
• in Latin between 1550 and 1559;
• in Italian in 1558; and
• in French in 1575,

so I'll have to check if it appeared in the very first German edition or not (and/or double check other sources). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it appears first time in the Latin edition of 1550 (BTW, I still think that the book is called "Cosmographia universalis"). It is interesting that, as far as I remember, the title of Latvian Oratio Dominica says that it is in "lingua livonica", i.e. in Livonian language although it is in pure Latvian. There is also an old version of Lord's prayer that is written in the first part of 16th century that is in some Baltic language, but it is debatable whether it is in Old Prussian, in Latvian or in somekind of mixed language.213.216.208.231 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the phrase According to some clotochronological speculations in the History section means. I can't find the word "clotochronological" anywhere when googling for it, except in this article. I suggest explaining the term or using a more common phrasing.

Kursenieki: Is their language Latvian dialect ?

That article states that they spoke Latvian, article Curonian language says it has evolvoved from Curonian language, sientifical writings, that I could find - one states that it's kind of creole or the other - that given that it was deaply impacted by other languages and politicaly seperated from other Latvians it is a Language (such argumentation would make any dialect, especialy Latgalian, a language), finaly the popular view among Latvians is that it's a different Language (thought - most Latvians consider nationality and native language to be same thing and Kursenieki are different nation) and when speaking about Latvian language it is usually overlooked. -- Xil/talk 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite this

I feel that this article is unclear and uninformative, especialy for forgeiners, and thereby needs to be rewriten, I think I'll have time for that next week. My plan roughly is to:

• Classification: incorporate information of balto-slavic here and try to explain why Latvian linguists don't include this in classification of the language
• Dialects: make a map, include kursenieki language, reffer to dialects in Latvian to avoid confusion with languages
• Grammar: expand
• Orthography: divide in three or more subsections - standart ortography, historical variations, Latvian and computers
• Phonology: expand, maybe explain Latvian traditional phonetical transcription
• History: merge these sections in history section: Problems in modern Latvian (Gimalajiešu lāči and Linguistic purism) and Language and politics. Divide in subsections - prehistory, 13th century - 18th century, 19th century - early 20th century, interwar period, soviet period, moder development

If you have objections, suggestions or questions about something in this plan please say that here -- Xil/talk 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty long and I haven't had time for that, I still think it needs to be rewrited---- Xil/talk 11:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

1.5 million speakers? It is much more, I think.

Of course, the population of Latvia is greater (close to 2,400,000), but a good percentage of the population speaks Russian, as it was the only officiel language for many years. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 21:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latvian Institute says there are 1.4 million native speakers in Latvia and about 150,000 abroad. So, the number in the article is quite accurate. We could only make it clear that the number is native speakers, rather than all speakers (which would include a fair part of Russian population in Latvia).Andris 21:08, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

In the section Language ans politics, it is already mentionned that Latvian is only 60% of the country's population, so I guess we could leave it that way. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About 1.5 million native speakers lives in Latvia, but there are hundreds of thousands who live abroad.So thats approx. 2 million native speakers + others (mainly people living in Latvia, so that could be at least 2.5 million).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.126.2 (talk • contribs)

There has been several edits to change the number recently, therefor I've given the smalest and the largest nummbers I could find, please stop changing this - you make article contradict itself (it says 1.4 million in second sentence of the article, but gives different nummber in infobox). ---- Xil/talk 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ģ and Ķ

Ģ Ģ and Ķ are palatized versions of D and T? I've always thought that they are palatalized versions of G and K.

See my comment in phonology above, stating the reasons for my description as palatized d and t. Zilonis

In some words ģ and ķ are palatalized versions of d and t. For example, kaķis, which stands for kat'is (Curonian katis/katē 'cat') and not kakis as in new Latgalian. Curonian doesn't have d'>dž>ž and t'>č>š changes, therefore dj and tj are sometimes in quick speech pronounced as Latvian ģ and ķ, for example, katis [katis] 'cat', but katja [kac^ja] 'of cat'.
Ģ and Ķ stands for dj and tj also in many loanwords like ķurķis rus. 't'ur'ma', soģis rus. 'sud'ja', ķieģelis, ger. 'tēgel' etc. In theese cases it would be more correct to write kaţis, soḍis, ţieģelis, but because of introducing two characters for representing one phoneme would not be reasonable, changes g'>ģ and k'>ķ, as also d'>ḍ and t'>ţ are represented only with characters ķ and ģ. Roberts7 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Palatalized palatals would be very difficult to articulate and probably don't occur anywhere. I'm sure you mean either [tʲ] or, more probably, [t͡ɕ] instead of [cʲ]. David Marjanović 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Livonian substratum

Quote from the article:

"The Livonian dialect was more affected by Livonian substratum than Latvian in other parts of Latvia."

What is the "Livonian substratum"? Is it the Finno-Ugric Livonian language? The paragraph does not make this clear. ---Alexander 007 05:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And if it is referring to the Finno-Ugric language, I'm not sure if we can call it a "substratum". May be more properly called an adstratum, I'm not sure; depends on the historical details. Alexander 007 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I ment Livonian language. My source named it substratum and said that influence of Livonian language in this dialect is grather than in Latvian language general. What it means is that ancient Livonians lived in Courland and then baltic tribes arrived to the area and slowly replaced/merged with livonians. Thought in Latvian two different words are used to name Livonians and inhabitans of Livonia, I don`t understand what isn`t clear to you - you couldn`t mean that estonians, livonians, germans, balts and other nations living in Livonia could be one substratum, then you could as well say that latvian substratum means i.e. Latvian and Russian, because russians live in Latvia -- Xil/talk 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure that the Livonian language was being referred to, it should have been linked in that sentence; these articles should be written for the outsider as well. About Livonian being a substratum or adstratum, I won't deny that it can be referred to as a substratum, but from another perspective, it is an adstratum. Consider this: the substratum of French is the Celtic Gaulish language, definitely; but what about the Germanic Old Frankish language that came much later and also left a large impact on the French language? Should that also be referred to as a substratum, or a later adstratum? It may be a matter of choice. The same case in the Romanian language: the true substratum of Romanian is a Paleo-Balkan language, but after the 7th and 8th centuries AD, Old Church Slavonic became a great influence, due to not only the Slavonic literature but also because Slavs were absorbed by Romanians. In the case of the Livonian dialect of Latvian, the fact that it is a dialect of Latvian and didn't become a very different language shows that when the Livonians were absorbed, all the major features of Latvian were already formed, and one may thus call Livonian an adstratum. But the term substratum is fine for the article. Alexander 007 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I refered to livonian language in general description of dialects, I thought that it was sufficient, maybe this section needs clean up to avoid confusion between dialects and languages. As for substratum/adstratum - I`m not completely sure if I understand terms correctly, but if I got it right from my dictionary and your explanation it appears to be substratum - Latvian itself has finno-ugric substratum, these dialects just were impacted more than other, althought we could say that these dialects were firstly impacted by substratum and then by adstratum -- Xil/talk 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Germanic Old Frankish language is a superstratum in French, but this is not relevant in regard to this specific article. -- Janis

Clear livonian (Finno-Ugric) influence on Latvian are fixed stress on a first syllable. (probably non latvianized livonian wasn't much different from south estonian)

The discussion would be clarified then if you would note that Latvian as a whole has a Finno-Ugric substratum, something which, I think, is patently obvious to anyone that knows the languages concerned and compares Latvian to Lithuanian. In addition to the fixed initial stress and the consequent radical simplification of the inflectional system (greatly appreciated by the foreign student, I might add), other features of Latvian which show this substratum influence unmistakeably are the use of the genitive of a substantive in widespread contexts where Lithuanian and PIE would use an adjectival infix and the use of the dative to denote the beneficiary of a verb or verbal noun, as well as the loss of the instrumental as a distinct inflected form. fbunnyFbunny 12:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems in Modern Latvian

Quote from the article:

"Purists feel that they are fithing barbarisms, while many Latvians describe purists as barbarians, they are accused of raping and killing the Latvian language."

Some very confusing language throughout this section, including this sentence which seems to pun on the word barbarism. I can't rewrite this, as I still don't understand the problems. Verylongnile 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing that may help: "fithing" apparently should reading fighting. The sentence you quote is clear to me (also clearly silly the way it's phrased), but it should elaborate on the situation. Alexander 007 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That section needs to be rewritten, I just wanted to note the fact, and somehow illustrate spirits in general public (yes, latvians use phrases like "rape and murder of language"). Writting isn`t my strongest point, it was a typo -- Xil/talk 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I realized that Latvians probably often do refer to it as a raping and killing, but I called it "silly" because I would not expect such an extreme metaphor in Brittanica or Columbia encyclopedias. But it's not a big deal, and I withdraw calling it "silly", since this is Wikipedia :-) Alexander 007 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Acctualy I`m quite surprised that no one had done anything with that section - I was to radical. Well, as I said I just wanted to remind about fact and I`m still not sure if this is the best way to describe the matter - some expansion and explenation why exactly these are problems is needed -- Xil/talk 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the language is bad, and it's unclear what the point of the section is. 惑乱 分からん 14:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the section to note two proceses that more or less impact the language. On the other hand, since you see no point, maybe it would be better to write a section called "changes in Latvian" an include those topics there (if someone could find something about other changes). And, please, stop pointing to my language - I simply am bad at writing (even in my native langugage) and fact that English is slightly diferent from Latvian isn't helpfull. -- Xil/talk 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some examples.--Zilonis 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gimalajiešu lāčiDelate that nonsence.

Give a better (English) term for that and expand, it is not nonsence - there is a yearly nation wide 'contest' to combat these mistakes held by state language center, it's just that I gethered information on the (shalow Latvian) web. -- Xil/talk 16:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment on that purist/barbarism stuff I think prescriptive linguistics is the way to go. It's acknowledged that it may (or may seem to) oppose change which is clearly (IMHO) the case considering the conservativism. That's how it should be delivered imho. The term barbarism should be avoided it sounds really dated. Okyea 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

I would be thankful if someone could take a look at this picture from Latvian wikipedia [3] and translate the description of the image :"Vārds „Allāh” rakstīts islāma kaligrāfijas jaunajā stilā, kuru XVII gs. sāka osmaņu mākslinieks Hafizs Osmans". I want to use this in English Encyclopedia. Also, I was wondering if the image is copyrighted and how its use is justified in that encyclopedia.

Thanks very much in advance. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note to the uploader, I guess he will be much more of help than anyone else ~~Xil...sist! 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I am the uploader of the image and it is a work of Ottoman turkish artist Hâfız Osman (1642-1698). The description in Latvian says: "Name of Allah written in the style of Arabic calligraphic script by 17th century Ottoman artist Hâfız Osman." --78.84.151.100 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you so so much for all the help! Much appreciated. Now the image could be used in English Wikipedia. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Phonology

This page describes Latvian phonology and gives sound exemples for popular phrases http://www.ailab.lv/ai1/fon/fonetika.htm since I have no idea how to writte IPA someone else could gether information there (for those who don't speak Latvian - this image ilustrates all phonemes). BTW template says there is no official regulation, but Law of State language states that 22.pants. (1) Speciālajā mācību literatūrā, tehniskajā un lietvedības dokumentācijā lietojama vienota terminoloģija. Terminu veidošanu un lietošanu nosaka Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmijas Terminoloģijas komisija (turpmāk - Terminoloģijas komisija). Jauni termini un to definīciju standarti lietojami oficiālajā saziņā tikai pēc apstiprināšanas Terminoloģijas komisijā un publicēšanas laikrakstā "Latvijas Vēstnesis". (2) Terminoloģijas komisijas nolikumu apstiprina Ministru kabinets. 23.pants. (1) Oficiālajā saziņā latviešu valoda lietojama, ievērojot spēkā esošās literārās valodas normas. (2) Latviešu literārās valodas normas kodificē Valsts valodas centra Latviešu valodas ekspertu komisija. (3) Latviešu valodas ekspertu komisijas nolikumu un latviešu literārās valodas normas apstiprina Ministru kabinets. (exuse me for not translating that and have fun interpreting which can be called regulator)- Xil/talk

Regarding phonology and orthography, the article says: "Four letters are modified versions of G, K, L and N. The modified letters are called mīkstais letters, and represent palatalisation of the unmodified sounds." I think some mention ought to be made of the fact that ģ and ķ are not modifications of the g and k sound, but rather of the d and t sound, right? I don't know IPA very well; are the IPA symbols consistent with my understanding?--Zilonis 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

pilnīgs bullshits.no mention ought to be made at least in the article you quoted.IN LATVIAN (and the article refers to the modification principles OF LATVIAN) the Ģ and Ķ are palatalized (or some other modification) G and K.could i make it any more obvious than this for example ģeoloģija which probably derives from German Geologie (i assume..i really don't feel like verifying this right now)which is pronounced (i assume) Gheh oh 'loggy..blah blah..so IN LATVIAN Ģ and Ķ is certainly a modification of G and K.well it's another kettle of fish if you talk about the actual pronunciation (especially from a point of another language)but that article is not about how other languages could perceive Ģ or Ķ.

OK, as far as orthography is concerned, Ģ and Ķ are obviously modified g and k, but the section also discusses phonology (which in this context is effectively equivalent with pronunciation, in my opinion). Clearly, Ģ and Ķ have no english equivalent. To describe the sound of Ģ and Ķ in english, I have had much more success teaching english speakers correct pronunciation by describing it as palatized d and t. I suppose various ways to describe Ģ is to say that it is between d and g, or a palatized d, or an advanced g. Similarly for Ķ. Pujāte and Sosāre describe Ģ as being like "dew" and Ķ as being like "tune." [4] But I think the original was confusing (which said only that Ģ is a palatized version of the unmodified sound). Zilonis 63.226.250.78 03:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They sound like palatised D and T (maybe they are - I'm not an expert), but in language they are used as variations of G and K, thus they are Ģ and Ķ (Constant shift, as far as I remmember, note that T shifts to Š and D to Ž)-- Xil/talk 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the section "Pitch Accent" is talking about, but I know its not giving correct examples. "Loks" does mean arch or bow, but window is "logs." I'm guessing green onion is not "loks" either, but as Latvian is not my native language, I'm not sure what a good translation would be. Maybe someone with a better grasp of the topic could take a look into this.

Although "logs" is spelled so, pronounciation is actually closer to "loks". Green onion and maybe some other similar vegetableas are "loki" (singular:"loks")(green onion particulary would be "sīpolloks"). -Yyy 09:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is appropriate for a discussion page but I just came up on my comment and actually I wanted to apologize, calling someone's (ie Zilonis's) point "pilnīgs bullshits" is just too rude even if it is erroneous.

Boy, you behaved like an American. We should keep in mind that one thing is a palatalized sound, and other is a palatal sound. Ģ and Ķ are actually pronounced as a palatalized D and T, respectively. By your standard, since Š is a palatal sound, and it is written as a modification to S, then you should conclude it is the palatalization of S, but actually it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.222.79 (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

History

Article looks better and better. Maybe in history section should be put something about historical langue development (throught many see it as degradation;) ). Like merge of r and ŗ. And some inovations compared to late proto-baltic old latvian. Much of it is writen in lithuanina article about latvian. Still mostly with meanin, that we lithuanins have more original baltic language. Ehich definetely isn't throu, as lithuanian are much slavic influenced. There are evidence evidence, that once latvian had dual number, but most of proto indoeuropean proto-languages once had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.44.4 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility and runic

It was over 10 years ago at this point, but I had reason to dig through Lithuanian boards in addition to Latvian ones, and it didn't take that long to follow Lithuanian. It's no less mutually (un)intelligible than Latgalian, I know, I spent a fair amount of time reading through (OK, attempting to...) the Latgalian prayer book in Aglona Church. Be that as it may,...
   Runic can be found here, from Prande's (1926) "Latvju Rakstniecība Portrejās", and Prande describes characters as runic.
   Does that (1926) mean copyright is expired on Prande? —PētersV (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, not until 2027... Anyone know his heirs? —PētersV (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh... different Prande, correct Prande died in 1933, so into the public domain as of 2003. Well, another project... —PētersV (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On intelligibility I do have to say that the usual Lithuanian / Latvian / Sanskrit comparison tables come up with a fair amount of mutualness. But it's been quite a while since I've hunted through any of that. —PētersV (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enought i found, that lithuanians do understand spoken latvian, but not the opposite, that is latvians don't understand spoken lithuanian.

So there was runes. Maybe should "Prior to this westernization, earlier Latvian was written in runic characters." should be changed to "Prior to christianization". Runes developed in west, not east.

I don't have experience with spoken Lithuanian, however, when I had the need some time ago to wade through some Lithuanian materials, it was possible after a while to get along sufficiently well. To me, Lithuanian didn't seem much more/any more different from Latvian than Latgalian.

   On the other point, I don't have any references for the origin of Latvian runic characters. I'd only note that there's also runic Bulgarian, for example. We can't really speculate on origin (western/eastern/indigenously developed). Bulgarian, for example, has a "runic" version as well. From a historical standpoint, "Westernization" and "Christianization" are one and the same for Latvia, dating to the invasion by the Livonian order. —PētersV (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Westernization usualy is used in modern sense. Mutual intelligibility is when most speakers can understand the language without any preperation and this isn't the case ~~Xil * 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In article about runes is stated "The earliest runic inscriptions date from c. 150, and the alphabet was generally replaced by the Latin alphabet with Christianization by c. 700 in central Europe and by c. 1100 in Scandinavia." And all europe always was west.

I am a native Latvian speaker. I live in Belfast, Northern Ireland and I personally know a few native Lithuanian speakers. I can understand some written Lithuanian, but not much at all without studying at least some basics of Lithuanian. My opinion is that spoken Latvian and Lithuanian are DEFINITELY NOT mutually intelligible. The vocabulary is very different, the pronunciation is different as well. I would compare Latvian and Lithuanian being roughly as close as Polish and Russian are to each other. I know tonnes of Poles and I'm fluent in Russian, so I'm talking about my personal experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.115.85 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Runes?

Are these Latvian runes runes really accepted as an old writing system by the contemporary scientific community? There doesn't seem to be much reliable information about them in English. I wonder whether these runes are a nationalistic hoax like e.g. Book of Veles.212.146.24.185 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing about them in Daniels & Bright, and even the Latvian Wikipedia article on 'runes' doesn't mention them, sticking to Germanic, Turkic, and Hungarian. kwami (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Accents

Does anyone have further sources about the Latvian phonology. I see in this article the term "level accent" is being used, but as far as I know the correct term for the circumflex accent is the drawling accent. I did not risk to change it in the article though. Even more, the term "level accent" is something entirely else, at least in this source.

"There is a strong variation in dialects with a tendency to replace the broken accent by falling accent and a tendency to combine the falling and the drawling accents into a single level accent."

Source: van der Hulst, Harry(Editor). Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (A Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers), 1999. p 893.

I'd like to hear some comments. Mjbjosh (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this be crafted as a question on a specific example? It would help the phonetically challenged. I do have a Baltic languages text (Latvian, translated from an academic work in Italian) but that's in storage until later in the fall. :-) —PētersV (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Orthography

...And while I'm at it, I'll dig out one of our old family bibles and put in the correct equivalent for the old (Germanic) orthography, as what's there now is the Lord's prayer in transliterated Germanic form from the early 16th century. It's still fine as a transcription of the original (partial viewable here). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical there exist two ortography traditions: german based for latvian proper, and polish based for latgalian dialect. So w and y could not represent different sounds. At least ‘w’, since w don’t exist in latvian as it don’t exist in polish. Modern latvian ortography have more common with central european (czech) than german ortography. Probably latvian ortography is much based on czech ortography. Pokemonism ortography could be remowed, and could leave place for something more important;) It was popular among teenagers to use ‘w’ instead of ‘v’, some teenager auditory oriented advertisments used ‘w’ for ‘v’. But it seems, fashion for ‘w’ has gone. Nothing long lasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.71.250 (talk • contribs)

First of all as far as I know y in Latgalian does stand for a distinct sound. Several languages use diactric signs similar to Latvian, Czech is a wild guess based only on similarity. And there is enough place for everything, just because you yourself don't do something, dosen't mean others don't, you don't have to remove everything you don't agree to. This is hardly about teenagers - note that cell phones still don't support Latvian diactrics and people do use double letters to write SMS -- Xil...sist! 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I agree on this, and not only in SMS but on computers without instaled latvian. Sometimes alsou long vowels is written doubled, like ā - aa, ē - ee. two literary traditions of the Latvian

Latvian orthography is czech influenced. Prāgas Kārļa Universitātes pētnieki, kurā māca arī latviešu valodu un kultūru, atraduši, ka aizpagājušajā gadu simtenī Čehijas misionāri hernhūtieši bija tie, kuri latviešu valodas rakstībai piedeva tagadējo izskatu, kas atšķīrās no tajā laikā pieņemtā vācu rakstības paņēmiena. here it is mentioned In english. In Prague Karol Univrsity, it is found, that czech hernhutian missionaries (moravian brothers?) modified latvian german based orthography folowing czech orthography principles. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

diphthongs

Could someone please check the diphthong#Latvian article? They'd claimed Latvian had 52 diphthongs before I deleted some of the more obvious errors. However, there are still a dozen I'm not sure about. kwami (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What's in the diphthong list currently is a mix of mainstream Latvian and Latgalian dialect. —PētersV (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting then why in other languages the sound combinations [ja], [je], [wa], [wo], [ea], [oa] etc are considered as diphtongs (see diphthong#Italian, Spanish, French, Icelandic and other), but the same sounds in Latvian are not diphtongs. Double stardards??? 'Roberts7 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)

Keyboard mapping

Hi,

Can anyone please write something about Latvian keyboard mapping? It might be interesting - i noticed that in Windows XP there are two options for a Latvian keyboard - one called "Latvian (QWERTY)" which is just the same as English, even without the special Latvian letters (Ņ, Ķ, ģ ...) and another one called "Latvian" which is completely different from QWERTY. I've never seen anything like - it's neither QWERTY nor French AZERTY nor Dvorak:

ū g j r m v n z ē č ž h
 u s i l d a t e c ´
  ņ b ī k p o ā , . ļ

My wild guess is that this mapping was used on typewriters in Soviet Latvia, but any clarification would be nice.

What is the keyboard mapping in common use in Latvia? Is it possible to write the special letters with a QWERTY-like mapping? I couldn't find any way to type a ļ or a ū with the "Latvian (QWERTY)" mapping.

I think that it would be best to write the answers straight to the article - it is really a unique keyboard that deserves a mention in Wikipedia.

Thanks!--Amir E. Aharoni 23:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that is Latvian ergonomic keyboard. It was invented for computers (in 1992 ?). Latvians usually use qwerty keyboard. (Actually, I think that no one manufactures Latvian keyboard.) Diactrical marks are inserted by pressing one of keys that has no letter on them (I have used ~ and " so far) before you type letter that must be marked. As for Latvian (qwerty) - try Ctrl+Alt, maybe that will do. Maybe it would be better if someone would add this to keyboard layout rather than this article -- Xil - talk 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer (liels paldies, right?).

RightAlt-letter works for me. Īt'š ģreāt fūņ tõ wŗītē Ūņīčõdē! Now it is certainly going to help with my Baltic studies course.--Amir E. Aharoni 07:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think another approach that might work for users of QWERTY keyboards and U.S. or English versions of software would be to program a macro function for one's word processor, so that one could write Latvian in "Internet style", using 2-character combinations that are unlikely to appear in Latvian to represent the ones with diacritical marks (as described by user Xil), then run the macro as a post-process to substitute the appropriate Latvian Unicode character for each 2-letter combination. This should work as long as one has the appropriate printer and screen font files installed. Microsoft Word has a feature called "correct as you type", which I usually disable because I find it so annoying when the computer "corrects" things that don't need correcting. Perhaps this could be put to use, so, for example, if one typed ~n, it would "correct" it by substituting ņ. --Quicksilver^{T @} 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW it will not work with double vowels, anyway here is a page that aperently describes how to get latvian for linux [5] -- Xil/talk 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With Windows XP latvian characters is gotten by right alt + character. Right alt + c = č Same with wowels right alt + a = ā.

• I have to say that I have never received an Email from anyone in Latvia (and this is from personal Emails to Emails sent by officials in official capacity) observing the "Internet" conventions listed in the article (Lord's prayer version). To put that into context, I've been using the Internet since before browser technology, and on my first visit to Latvia (1989) I paid a fortune for every Latvian font face (RIM encoding) which was available at that time to insure being able to exchange documents in proper written Latvian.
•   The Lord's prayer in Internetian Latvian is far more confusing than informative or accurate. It would be more than enough to mention that prior to easy access to Latvian diacritics, various informal conventions were used to indicate vowel elongation and consonant softening in electronic correspondence--the other option was to just ignore diacritics, which was/is also done. PētersV 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Why not keep the example? Often an example is clearer than attempts to describe. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in the artcle that it is unofficial, the text is example of what has been clearly described in the article, it has no mistakes in it. Thus it is accuarate, informative and not confusing (After all examples are all about giving additional information to those who might be confused). If you don't expect people to write like that it is no wonder they don't use this style when writing to you, also you might find this confusing because you are not familiar with this style ~~Xil...sist! 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LV: Nedomāju, ka šajā rakstā būtu vieta Tēvreizei tā saucamajā Interneta rakstībā. Šim rakstības stilam nav nekāda oficiāla statusa. To parasti lieto vai nu skolnieki čatos, vai latvieši, kuri raksta uz mājām e-pastus no sava ārzemju ceļojuma, ja dators neatbalsta latviešu valodu.--Riharcc (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

EN: In my opinion there is no place in this article for so called Internet style (where First, Old, Modern and so called Internet style are compared). It has no any ofical status and usually its used by pupils in chats or by latvians which are writting e-mails to Latvia from some hotel in their summer vacations (if software dont support latvian).--Riharcc (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ķ and Ģ again

Click on the letters at the "Latvian Alphabet" page, which is mentioned in the external links, and listen: Ķ and Ģ are not [c ɟ], not [tʲ dʲ], and not [kʲ gʲ] (though these latter ones are certainly historical ancestors of the modern pronunciations); they are [t͡ɕ d͡ʑ]. Likewise, Ņ and Ļ are not [ɲ ʎ], but [nʲ lʲ]. I have changed the consonant table accordingly.

To hear an actual [ɲ], listen to these Malayalam samples, or to these Hungarian samples which also include real palatal plosives.

I bet Ŗ was [rʲ], too. Isn't there a dialect that retains this sound? David Marjanović 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Malayalam and Hungarian samples sound like Latvian ņ more then those on Latvian alphabet page, also when pronouncing only letters in alphabet people unknowingly tend to add another sound (something like Latgalian y) to accent the sound, these sound samples are no exception. Ŗ was already declining in begining of 20th century, in fact one of the linguists who worked out Latvian alphabet spoke in such dialect and apparently was very pasionate to retain this sound. My own observasion is that any Latvian palatised letter sound, except for Ķ and Ģ, can be produced by pronouncing j closely after respective non-palatised letter, given that on web (see section Latvian and computers) usualy j is used to indicate palatisation I apparently am not the only one who has noticed that. One can come up with Ķ and Ģ by saying Dj or Tj rather than Gj or Kj. Also Livonian language also uses Ķ and Ģ, but in Livonian these are written Ț and Ḑ, and article on Livonian says they are [c ɟ] -- Xil/talk 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rusian dj and tj (дь, ть) is clearly pronounced different thant latvian ģ and ķ. Maybe difference aren’t that clear for non native speakers, but once I in read in russian, that latvian langue have strange sounds like ģ and ķ;) In latvian exist recent created slang word derived from word ‘hokejs’ for ice hockey: ‘hoķis’. No ‘t’. It is recent, as ice hockey in Latvia have become very popular only after fall of USSR. I listened hungarian samples. Actualy hungarian gyujt and agya sounds just as latvian ģ. Tyuk and atya probably sounds a bitt deferent, more like russian ть. p.s. nice article, more informative than in many latvian encyclopedias. 159.148.71.250 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not a scientific approach to language problem, left alone the incorrect statement of popularity of ice hockey. Please see other arguments of the same topic at other sections of the page. -- Avellano (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Latvian? Latin?

When I first heard of Latvia, I thought it was 'Latiniva', and it's official language was Latin. Then I heard it's real name, and it's real official language. How about this:

Not to beconfused with the Latin Language.

82.12.1.173 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Y in Latgalian

It says in this article, that "y" is used for a distinct phoneme in Latgalian, not found in other dialects, yet no mention of what the phoneme is here, and no mention of "y" at all in Latgalian language. Curious. Tomer^talk 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an "i" sound, more of an "eeee" than "i" in "it" (at least in how I've learned to pronounce it, so not an academic answer). And "y" substitutes for "i", for example, "cits" means "other" in Latvian and is spelled "cyts" in Latgalian. Latvian WP article on Latgalian, Latgaliešu valoda, has some examples comparing Latvian language and Latgalian dialect. —PētersV (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That article, unfortunately, is not especially useful. Based on the use of "y" in other languages, as well as on your statement above, I'm given to wonder if perhaps it isn't actually [y] (like German ü)... perhaps leftover influence from the Teutonic Knights, I dunno. My Latvian is so rusty that articles written in simple Latvian are difficult for me anymore, and technical articles about the phonetic history of Latvian dialects, if such articles exist [in Latvian, at least], are far beyond my ability to comprehend. So, if such articles can be found, would it be possible to get a translation of the relevant text? Tomer^talk 00:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My Baltic Languages book is buried in some box, so will have to wait, unfortunately. A quick look around came up with "Antons Breidaks. Latgalīšu raksteibys stabiliziešonuos XX godu symta pyrmajā trešdaļā" in ACTA LATGALICA 11. (Stabilization of written Latgalian in the first third of the 20th century). Worth writing to see if it's available somehow (link as a reminder). —PētersV (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by how "y" is used in Lithuanian, it appears at least possible that "y" is an older representation of "ī" in Latvian, retained only in Latgalīšu orthography. At this point, I'm hypothesizing way out on a limb... Tomer^talk 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think y is russian ы or estonian õ,that is ɨ. But I'm not shure about that. Definetely it isn' t german ü, german ü sounds very different. (by 159.148.159.114)

I left the above anyway, ы is a shorter "ih" back in the throat, Latgalian "y" is more "ee" without being elongated. (This from personal observation). —PētersV (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian ы and Estonian õ come closest to Latgalian y with some small differences. -- Avellano (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is even more simple. Latvian language has few pronunciations for most letters in the Alphabet. There is "i" which is pronounced like "i" in "Mister", there is "i" which is more like the first "i" in "kidding", which is closer to Estonian "õ" and is equivalent to Latgalian "y". Simply, Latgalian make written difference of those two sounds, Latvian does not. But both languages have these different sounds of "i". 122.208.114.66 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Phonology tables

I came across a book on Latvian phonology, while I haven't done reading and therefore don't want to change anything myself yet, I find these dubious - on what are they based anyway? The thing is that there seems to be plenty of materials that approximate Latvian sounds to English, without reference I suspect that somebody may have based the tables on these approximations, in which case they reflect how Latvian with English accent sounds, not proper Latvian ~~Xil (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So I changed consonants listed here as aveolar and as dentals in afore mentioned book as dentals as it seems likely, but it does say that c and dz are also dental, there are positional variations of h, namely pharyngeal and palatalised, that j is palatal voiced frictive and there are positional semivowel variations of u/v and i/j, so there's bilabial and velar u/v and palatal i/j, plus there of course is palatised trill ŗ. ~~Xil (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic

The claim that "many linguists" dispute the Balto-Slavic hypothesis is simply not true. Talk:Balto-Slavic languages

In this case, debate is whatcha put on de hook to catch de fish. David Marjanović 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that sentence. However for some reason it seems that Latvians mostly ignore this - never ever I have seen Balto-slavic included in clasification of Latvian and web searching for the term in Latvian returns no results, though there are enough pages on Latvian language and its origins. Which, I think, is rather curious - Why ? -- Xil/talk 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Common traits in Baltic and Slavic langues are obtained in close ancestral contact, not becouse they are more closed relative, that say latvian and sanskrit langues.

Is this science or politics? The Balto-Slavic "hypothesis" is an evidence to any linguist acquainted with Lithuanian and proto-Slavic. This might be disputed by some Latvian politicians or amateurs on this channel but it is not disputed by any serious linguist. The development from PBS to proto-Slavic is easy to map. Fbunny 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Lithuanian indeed as neighbouring to slavic langues are more slavian like. It alsou could be, that balto-slavic hypothesis is politicaly motivated during soviet times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Found in lithuanian language article: History: There have been attempts to suggest the existence of a Balto-Slavic language group after the splitting of the Proto-Indo-European language, with the Slavic and Baltic branches then dividing after a prolonged period of common language (Szemerényi, 1957). However, other linguists (Meillet, Klimas, Zinkevičius) oppose this view, providing arguments against the common Balto-Slavic proto-language, and explaining similarities by a historical period, or several periods, of close contacts. While the possession of many archaic features is undeniable, the exact manner by which the Baltic languages have developed from the Proto-Indo-European language is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as balto-slavic. Nonsense. RonDivine (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In Russian, Ukrainian, Polen, Belorussian (all Slavic languages) and Latvian (Baltic) articles about Latvian as well as about all other Baltic and Slavic languages are NOT term Balto-Slavic in classification. It seems, that it classification exists only in western Europe and Nort Amerika, but not in countries where these languages are native. Only exception is Lithuanian articles and articles in some of these languages ABOUT Lithuanian.--Riharcc (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Because your literature is obsolete. My comparative grammar of Croatian [6] from 2008 dedicates some 20 pages to the treatment of Balto-Slavic proto-language. Lots of research in Balto-Slavic studies actually comes from Russia, no less (the so-called "Moscow school" run by Vladimir Dybo and Sergei Nikolayev). As for Lithuania, I suggest that you browse the articles from recent issues of Baltistica, for some top recent research in the field. The days of dispute of Balto-Slavic as a genetic node are long gone by. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, I`didnt say that Balto-Slavic language doesn`t existed - I`m talking about 2 different systems in today`s classification of Indoeuropian languages: in west they highlight Balto-Slavic, but in some countries they miss it. But its only about classification - nobody denys that modern Baltic and Slavic languages originate from their protolanguage - Balto-Slavic language, I hope, You understood, what is the difference. And I`m not talking about some literature in Russian - only about wikipedia articles.--Riharcc (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Riharcc, the whole point of existence of "Balto-Slavic" proto-language is very disputable. There are few reasons why Baltic languages are being considered closer to Slavic than, let's say, Germanic languages, and few reasons which prove that Baltic and Slavic languages have completely different basis and are not closely related. Then, just remember Lithuanian Duchy and the fact that Lithuanian language was pretty much "slavicized" during that time simply because most of Duchy residents were speaking pure Slavic languages. Take, again, "big" Baltic languages without such Slavic influence and we will see that there are much and much less Slavic features inside. Then, again, take the classic method - take Svodesh lists and find many new things for yourself. Basically, the fact that Baltic languages are as distant from Slavic as distant they are from German languages. Of course, there are many theories and Baltic-Slavic is pretty popular, especially in Russia, coming from Soviet times but please do not ignore other theories as well. The only 100% fact is that no one really knows how really did Baltic languages develop. They are too ancient and Baltic people were too isolated from the other world to know it for sure. 122.208.114.66 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP, that's just, well, foolish. The roots of Balto-Slavic are archaic - this happened long, long before any "infiltration" due to "close contact" between Balts and Slavs. As the qualified linguists on these pages state, there is no debate on Balto-Slavic now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

More on the grammar please!

Loved the article overall!

You make a brief reference to the grammar, but don't give any real idea of whether the degree to which nouns have different cases, the degree to which verbs decline, how many different declensions there are. I hope I'm using the right terminology: I'm reaching back to my Latin: it has 5 noun declensions, see this for what I'm wittering about! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a seperate article on grammar and yet another on declension. I don't understand how you want to assess degree - the article clearly states that there are seven. Yeah, ok - five of them matter more, but to say so would be original research, not inline with majority view. I'll add few sentences on other stuff you mention, but I suggest to read other relevant articles, if you are interested in declension tables and such stuff ~~Xil (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They are right actually. I ran down the article a couple of times and the link to Latvian declension, for example, was nowhere to be found. I made two subsections (Nouns and Verbs) under the grammar section to nest the links to the main articles in a place where no one could miss them. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yiddish versus Hebrew

Ca. 2004. first implementation of bilingual education, from a presentation by an advisor to the government...

Izveidojās skolas, kurās mācības notiek:

1) 1.-12.klasē (vidusskolas, ģimnāzijas) - krievu, poļu, ukraiņu, lietuviešu, igauņu, ebreju (idišs); [last = Jewish (Yiddish)]

2) 1.-9.klasē (pamatskolas) - krievu, poļu, baltkrievu valodā;

3) 1.-4.klasē (sākumskolas) - čigānu valodā.

So the recent edit would be correct, Yiddish as opposed to Hebrew. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lettish

It's very misleading to say simply that Latvian is 'sometimes also referred to as Lettish', or to give 'Lettish' simply as a synonym for Latvian in the Wiktionary. Most native English-speakers would surely agree with me that 'Lettish' is now dated or even archaic (as a number of dictionaries actually state), and I don't think many of them (even older ones) would now even recognise it as a name for the language spoken in Latvia - if anything, it sounds like 'lettuce' spoken with loose false teeth. This is particularly confusing for non-native speakers of English whose own languages refer to Latvian as 'Lettisch', 'Lettiska', 'Lets', 'letton' and so on (with similar names for the country) and who may therefore be tempted to latch onto this supposedly acceptable alternative. Since correcting this would involve extensive amendments to several Wikipedia articles, I'll leave that to someone with the necessary technical skills, but it really has to be done, as the present information is plain wrong.92.111.250.34 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyrillic used to write on Facebook

I have a friend on facebook who is from Riga, Latvia and she writes in Cyrillic. I think that they can write their language in both latin and cyrillic script (such as people living in Moldavia, who writes romanian in cyrillic). Guess this can be an opportunity to add more info on this page! Wizard95 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Sounds to me like she may be a Russian-speaker (of whom there are a good many in Riga) rather than a Latvian-speaker - her surname may give a clue. I haven't heard of Latvian being written in Cyrillic (except when writing Latvian proper names in Russian), although it seems there were short-lived moves in the nineteenth century to make that change. As for Moldovan (formerly known as Moldavian), Cyrillic was imposed by the Soviet authorities in an attempt to distinguish it from Romanian, whereas in fact the two languages are effectively identical. Since the collapse of the USSR the Latin alphabet has been restored, and only the breakaway pro-Russian republic of Transnistria still uses the Cyrillic spelling.92.111.250.34 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Latvian language. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politika.lv/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302174104/http://isec.gov.lv/normdok/oflanglaw.htm to http://isec.gov.lv/normdok/oflanglaw.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302174104/http://isec.gov.lv/normdok/oflanglaw.htm to http://isec.gov.lv/normdok/oflanglaw.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latvian language. 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/20070916092434/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Latvian-english/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Latvian-english/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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, 3 December 2017 (UTC)