Category talk:Religious language

Definition?

Apparently this category needs a definition. Adamic language and Reformed Egyptian—two languages which religions theorize or believe existed but for which there is little or no "scientific" proof—have been included here for awhile, but have been removed. One remover has said only "real" or "actual" languages belong here. I think the matter should be discussed before these two articles are permanently removed. What does everyone think? Keep them here or create a separate category for non-real religious languages? –SESmith 10:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be in a category Mythological Languages. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placing these languages alongside Classical Armenian and Category:Latin religious phrases is highly POV, as is placing them in a "Mythological languages" category. I don't see why this "Religious languages" category, which anyhow omits many obvious candidates which might be assigned to it, is needed, really. "Liturgical languages" would be more accurate, and neither of these would qualify. I struggle to think of an analogous situation. There have been a number of archaeological and linguistic hoaxes over the years, but none upon which a religion was founded. There are many other invented languages - some a good deal more developed than either of these - but their history isn't disputed. I think the best solution is to avoid this question entirely. There's certainly no point creating a category:LDS languages with only two members.Proabivouac 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Adamic language could fit here, I don't really see "Reformed Egytpian" as being a "religious" language any more than Latin, Greek, or Hebrew (none of which are in this category). It was simply the language the Book of Mormon claims to be written in, not any special religious language. At any rate, this category seems highly unnecessary, and it's probably better to delete the category and avoid the issue entirely. The Jade Knight 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs. Does anyone want to nominate this category for deletion, or should we hold off? I'm finding it hard to come up with a decent definition for what goes in the cat, so I think along with some of you that maybe this category is not an ideal way of classifying language. –SESmith 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. A Category:Liturgical Languages might be useful, but the LDS languages wouldn't be in it.

Reformed Egyptian does not exist except as something in which the Book of Mormon purportedly was written before Joseph Smith translated it with the aid of magical crystals and stones, then returned the plates of ore to Moroni. No text is written in it, no one speaks it, indeed there is no sample of this language anywhere, so it doesn't really qualify as an invented language either, more just a language name.Proabivouac 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]