Talk:List of languages by first written account/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Don't delete Magadhi Prakrit again

There is no reason for it. Thanks. --Kalarimaster (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is resolvedTaprobanus (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The dialect is eastern Prakrit, called Magadhi Prakrit.

Studies in Indian Epigraphy: Bhāratīya Purābhilēkha Patrikā University of Michigan. Is this enough for you ? --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because not all Ashokas inscriptions are in that dialect alone. No need to hair split. We just resolved to seperate Parkrit from Sanskrit as two different write ups. The two cites that I have does not hair split, one is from a very eminent linguistTaprobanus (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference tells further: Magadhi Prakrit was the official language of Ashokas empire and was slightly modified for nothern and north western regions. That's a clear statement for me. --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Dab and other linguists (certainly not all, and not Sheldon) thinks that at that time there was no major difference between these languages and were simply dialects, including Sanskrit. Similar to some linguists calling the common language of tamils and Malayalees as Tamil Malayalam instead of tamil even if the users self refered it as such.Taprobanus (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Any references for the above opinions? Maybe in the internet, google books? --Kalarimaster (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide your references.

I have other reference for the administration language of Ashoka: http://books.google.com/books?id=DAwmUphO6eAC&pg=PA20&dq=ashoka+magadhi+prakrit&lr=
http://books.google.com/books?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&pg=PA83&dq=ashoka+magadhi+prakrit&lr=
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wk4_ICH_g1EC&pg=PA162&dq=ashoka+magadhi+prakrit&lr= --Kalarimaster (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

guys, I know it is a big deal in India whether Dravidian or Indo-Aryan is "older" or "more classical". This doesn't give anyone the right to turn this perfectly unrelated article into a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Nobody outside Indian "communalism" cares one fig for this. This is Wikipedia. We have rules. Various petty conflicts of Indian politics are completely WP:UNDUE here. Try to take off your Indian glasses and look at the article content as a whole, and try to find out why the other languages are listed the way they are. See, for example, how we have West Germanic as an entry, with details on the various dialects added. There is obviously room for informed debate, but there isn't any room for petty partisan pov-pushing on the basis "my langauge is older than yours". It makes you look immature and stupid. ANd please don't try to pretend you have any interest in this article other than precisely this. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is "Western German" merged, while all other languages are in the single pattern?? This has to be corrected, since it is a clear inconsistency of the article. There is already a language family section in the article provided with language families and sub language families, where this belongs to.--Kalarimaster (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'm still waiting for your sources for your statements. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For plain Prakrit, my two sources just say that Taprobanus (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but we know, there are different variants of Prakrit right? Magadhi Prakrit, Maharahashtri Prakrit, Pali etc. Why don't we go in detail here? I have provided the necessary sources for it. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

you know what, "Kalarimaster", if you want to overhaul the way this list is structured, prepare a {{workpage}} in user space and then present it here as a suggestion. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already an appropriate structure, but the two informations doesn't fit in the categories where they stand. One, this western german stuff, and the other is Prakrit. These are not single languages. I have provided the necessary references for it. Stop reverting again, it will be considered as vandalism. --Kalarimaster (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

you may be unfamiliar with the concept of WP:POINT, I take it? The question the list is supposed to answer is "when is the earliest epigraphic attestation of Indo-Aryan", as opposed to "when is the earliest attestation of Magadhi Prakrit in particular, as opposed to all other Prakrits". Don't be silly. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

recurring problems

this article suffers from the recurring situation of editors interested in one specific language trying to make "their" language look as old as possible. This is a problem. We need a certain overall standard of how this list is kept, otherwise we'll see just the "languages with a lobby" drifting backward in time. Yes, Chinese is a special case, and needs to be explained as such. But it is perfectly misleading to state that Old Chinese has "written attestation" from 1400 BC. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "it is perfectly misleading..." I really don't think it is misleading. It appears from all the articles that the oracle bones and bronzes are quite as legible to scholars of Chinese as the Linear B inscriptions are to scholars of Greek. Moreover, the script of the oracle bones is the direct ancestor of the modern Chinese script in a way that Linear B cannot be said to be an ancestor of the modern (or classical) Greek script, so if anything the connection is better established in the Chinese case. These two languages should be treated similarly, which they are in the current table. Iphthime (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

indeed: of the modern Chinese script. As far as I know, it could have been written by Klingons, it just happens to be the predecessor of the script we know was later used for Chinese, so we assume the oracle bone inscriptions are "Chinese" too. This isn't a "linguistic" attestation. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if they were Chinese-speaking Klingons. Greek scholars say that the language of Linear B is Greek, and Chinese scholars say that the language of the oracle bones is Chinese. We should believe them in both cases. Iphthime (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct attestation vs indirect attestation

What is this list based on? Direct attestation, as in oldest surviving text written in a certain language or indirect attestation as in documents written in language A that cite documents written in language B. If it is direct attestation then recent edits on Romanian should be removed, there is no manuscript older than Neacsu's letter. The Hurmuzachi codex (as well as one or two others) are most likely copies of older originals. But these originals did not survive! Plinul cel tanar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinul cel tanar (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we want direct epigraphic attestation here, anything else would be too fuzzy. But we should include manuscripts that were assessed by modern scholarship and were subsequently lost. We need to rely on expert scholarly opinion on whether a record is truly genuine. -dab (𒁳) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Telugu

Telugu language is epigraphically dated to 400BCE, says the Archaeological Survey of India - http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/20/stories/2007122054820600.htm, and should therefore be corrected. It is mentioned in this article as being epigraphically dated to 600CE which is exactly a millenium late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.100.54 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably need academic ciations not a newspaper citation. Taprobanus (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't impossible, but we'd need solid references that there is actually linguistic attestation dating to this early, not just glyphs that look like "Telugu script". Tamil has the same problem, there are scattered glyphs several centuries earlier than the first unambiguous linguistic attestation. But I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 400 BC Telugu inscription in principle. --dab (𒁳) 22:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Canaanite and West Semitic

Are these actual languages? The wikilink points to a language family, not a language per se. --Athenean (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem with these languages attested very early is that they were more or less unified at the time of their first attestation, but have diversified into a full family since. This is like West Germanic: early attestations of West Germanic are so close to Common West Germanic that it is close to pointless to distinguish attestation of the individual branches. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

tamil language credibility

Hi,

Why tamil language credibility is degraded here many times although the proven record of the earlist known work is shown . The earlist known work tolkappiyam is dated back between the eighth century BCE and the 3rd century BCE. Still the tamil language is changed to 2nd century BC . any specific reason for this ?

Reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolk%C4%81ppiyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

don't present Wikipedia as a "reference" for Wikipedia. The 8th century BC date is nonsense. The 3rd century BC may one be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See Date of the Tolkappiyam for a compilation of actual references for date estimates. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Especially do not believe it if it caters to your patriotic pride, chances are that the piece of information has been disseminated not because it has any truth value but because other people felt good about it too. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"don't present Wikipedia as a "reference" for Wikipedia" -- what does it mean . do u mean wikipedia accepts everything without verification . Anyhow my question is When there is a proven record of tholkappiyam for 3rd century bc , why the language is degraded to 2nd century ?

Please find the below informations from ASI(Archaeological Survey of India) . These are proven records . Even the 3,000 years ago Iron age habitational site found at Adichanallur is with the tamil brahmi scripts in urn "ka ri a ra va [na] ta."

Dr. T. Sathyamurthy , Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, confirmed The evidence of writing on more than 75 pieces of pottery had been found in Sri Lanka and radio-carbon dating had established that they belonged to the period between 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. The recent archeological findings at Adichanallur, Tamil Nadu by ASI have indicated that the Tamil-Brahmi inscription may have dated from as far back as 7th-8th century BC.

Article regarding the discovery

http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1354201,prtpage-1.cms

3,000 years ago Iron age habitational site found at Adichanallur with tamil scripts in urn

http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/03/stories/2005040301931400.htm

Please dont degrade the credibility of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The earliest written records for Tamil language was well established by grammarians, epigraphy and archaeologists to be 15th century B.C was overshadowed by some sanskrit likers here. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/02/17/stories/2005021704471300.htm

the above article on The Hindu proves this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavshree (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Few clarification needed related to Sanskrit

Hi,

In the Wiki page i came across the lines "Oral tradition of epic poetry may typically bridge a few centuries, and in rare cases, over a millennium. An extreme case is the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rigveda: the earliest parts of this text are dated to ca. 1500 BC" which is recorded in WIKI without any proof. As per standards i think this is not acceptable.

What i need to clarify here is , many languages which are declared classical languages like Telugu , tamil , kannada along with sanskrit by Indian govt has the oral tradition of almost 2000 Years . Even the languages like Telugu , tamil have proven written records dated back till 400 BC , 500 BC alternatively by ASI ( archaeological survey of india) and many write ups of this langauges are done in leaf earlier so which is not possible to carbon date .

So is that fine if we date back the languages Tamil , telugu , kannada also to 1500 BC as like sanskrit as per the oral tradition .

i will bevery much pleased if we have proven pointers to the sentence "An extreme case is the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rigveda: the earliest parts of this text are dated to ca. 1500 BC" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mozarabic

Could you add Mozarabic language? Wikipedia doesn't give precise dates for the kharjas? --Error (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Turkish Language In 1277 Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey prepared a firman declaring Turkish as the official language; therefore, the earliest record of Turkish is before c.1350 as stated in the article here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamano%C4%9Flu_Mehmet_Bey

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.210.82 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Karthiees, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please note that the date for "Tamil language is wrongly mentioned as 100 AD but you link for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_literature" States that tamil litrature has been around from 600 BCE! Please us this reference and make appropriate changes in the listing for Tamil Language.

Thank you!!

Karthik

Karthiees (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it says "c. 600 BC to 300 AD" - added like that, with the refs. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Tamil Epigraphy

• The Tamil entry is listed as Tamil - c. 600 BC to 300 AD. Its reference says "The classics selected for the project include both grammatical and literary texts which are original and which belong to the period between 300 B.C. and 600 A.D." There is a difference between 300BC to 600AD and 600BC to 300AD. I therefore changed it accordingly.
• Moreover, all we need is an inscription with a reliable date for it that says 300BC. This should come from the Archeological Society of India, which is the officially recognized organization that deals with excavations in India. I am not sure the opinions of individuals who claim that Tamil writing "may have existed" by 300BCE, can be considered encyclopediac. Hence adding a dubious tag to the dates. Srkris (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer the below links

* http://archaeologyindia.com/adichanallur.asp

* http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/04/03/stories/2005040301931400.htm

* http://asi.nic.in/asi_exec_adichchanallur.asp

According to these "Adichanallur Excavation" the Tamil scripts are available before 5th century BC. Hence there is nothing dubious about this, so removing the dubious tag. Rajan (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit & Prakrit Epigraphy

• The is no concerte reference provided here for Sanskrit & Prakrit's from Archeological Society of India about its date, hence tagging it as dubious Rajan (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency at the start of the list

User:Dbachmann pointed out above that "we need a certain overall standard of how this list is kept". As it is, inconsistency shows up already by the second and third entries. Akkadian is listed second because Akkadian names appeared in Sumerian texts c. 2800 BC; connected texts in Akkadian apparently aren't known until about 2600. Egyptian is listed after Akkadian because the first connected text in Egyptian appeared around 2700. Yet scattered words and names in Egyptian appeared (in Egyptian writing, not that of foreigners) a few centuries earlier, before the first attestation of Akkadian. This inconsistency should be fixed. Deciding which standard to use in this case—individual words or connected phrases or sentences—would also help establish a standard to use in other cases. A. Parrot (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kish tablet

How can a tablet with some symbols be a "written ACCOUNT". In that way what about languages of the other river valley civilizations around 3000 BC with symbols on tablets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.45.90 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

I found this link on another Wikipedia article. It says that the oldest writing system was found in the Indus Valley dating back 5500 years and carbon dating shows it to be around at 3200BC, possibly at the same time or before Sumerian. I don't know if you want to include it or if the Indus script counts as a writing system but i just found this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.56 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow

So chinese isn't a written language. I suppose by that logic, only pinyin, which few Chinese use except for computer input maybe, is written Chinese and therefore the first written Chinese is in the 19th or 20th century. That would explain the late date for Egyptian, since demotic came much later than the hieroglyphics. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indis script belongs to Tamil langauge

Many research people provide that the indis valley script belong to tamil language . As indian govt accept that the report from P.P.LAL who proved 85 out of 100 percent of script matches with tamil script. It is also recognized internatioally from the research of Prof.ASKO PARPOLA .

Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award-2009 also been awarded to Prof. ASKO PARPOLA a renowned scholar from FINLAND, whose contribution to advocating a Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem is outstanding and internationally acknowledged.

As indus valley script is dated back to 2500 BC . can be move tamil language up in the table?

125.17.102.65 (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arabic

The oldest Arabic attestation is listed as:

Arabic - 512: pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions

Yet if you follow the link to the Arabic language it mentions the earliest Arabic inscriptions as dating from about the 8th. century B.C.E.

There are certainly plenty of Arabic inscriptions pre-dating the year 512. Most of them are in the exact same Arabic as we see in print media today in the Arabic world, some of the earliest ones are in a slightly older version of Arabic, but which is no more different than Biblical Hebrew is from the later varieties. And certainly nowhere near as different as Modern English is from Shakespearean English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.58.253 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamil should be moved down

Since the article is about "first written accounts", Tamil should be moved down to the date of its first unambiguous inscription/writing. I have tagged it dubious since the references provided do not cite any inscription or writing in Tamil from the 3rd century BCE. The most reliable statment comes fromt the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which mentions the Ashokan edicts (in prakrit) to be the earliest known inscriptions of India in any language, see http://asi.nic.in/asi_epigraphical_sans_antiquity.asp; so if no one gives an equally/more reliable counter evidence, it will be moved down to the mid 1st millenium CE where the earliest Tamil Brahmi inscriptions have been dated by the ASI. --Srkris (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamil should be moved up atlest to 500 BC

Hi,

600 BC to 500 BC OLD tamil script in Srilanka Dr. Sathyamurthy (ASI) said that the Brahmi script of around 500 B.C. had been found in Sri Lanka. Dr. S.U. Deraniyagala, former Director-General and now Consultant to the Archaeological Survey Department, Sri Lanka, called the discovery of the writing on the urns at Adichanallur "fantastic" and "very, very important." The evidence of writing on more than 75 pieces of pottery had been found in Sri Lanka and radio-carbon dating had established that they belonged to the period between 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. This discovery "sheds a completely new light on the origin of writing in South Asia," said Dr. Deraniyagala. Interestingly, there has been no evidence of habitation close to the cemeteries (burial sites) discovered there.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm

LAL of ASI:

"In 1960, B.B. Lal, former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), wrote a paper in the publication Ancient India brought out by the ASI, with a photographic catalogue of the megalithic and chalcolithic pottery with graffiti marks and comparing them with the signs of the Indus script. “Since then, many more examples of pottery with graffiti marks that have a strong resemblance to the Indus signs have been found at Sanur near Tindivanam in Tamil Nadu and Musiri (Pattanam) in Kerala,” Mr. Mahadevan said." Particularly significant was a large megalithic terracotta plate found at Sulur near Coimbatore, with symbols closely resembling an inscription on a tablet found at Harappa, which is also in Pakistan now. Hence, “there is distinct possibility that the megalithic symbols and the corresponding signs of the Indus script have the same significance and meaning,” he said. (The terracotta plate from Sulur is on display at the British Museum in London).

Reference : http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/03/stories/2008050353942200.htm

The discovery in the spring of 2006 of Indus signs on a hand-axe in the southern India state of Tamil Nadu could increase the probability that the ancient Indus signs are related to the Dravidian language family. This research is carried out expert Iravatham Mahadevan. He also encountered aNote on the Muruku Sign of the Indus Script in light of the Mayiladuthurai Stone Axe Discovery

refereces: http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html

So The Tamil language should be moved up , as there are many evidance that Indus valley script are closely associtated with tamil brahmi scritp and atleast should be moved up to 500 BC as per the research carried out in srilanka and confirmed by Dr. Sathyamurthy ASI .

Vivekhere (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Glosas Silenses and Glosas Emilianenses

Manuel Cecilio Díaz y Díaz (Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz, Las primeras glosas hispánicas, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 1978, Publicaciones del Seminario de Literatura Medieval y Humanística, p.26-32, ISBN 84-7488-005-X) demostrated the Glosas Silenses and Glosas Emilianenses were not written in the 10thC but far into the 11thC. Majorcan (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Catalan

The oldest Catalan text was written at the end of the 10thC or the very beginning of the 11thC: "Magister m[eu]s no vol q[ue] me miras novel" (My master does not want you to look at me, young one, "Young people should not read this book") J. Moran i Ocerinjauregui, "L'aparició del català a l'escriptura", Estudis de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes XIX, Miscel·lània Joan Bastardas, vol. II, Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat, Barcelona, 1989, p.103-141.Majorcan (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Turkic

Oldest surviving example of Old Turkic is not Orkhun Inscriptions A.D.732. According to wikipedia itself(to say the least) oldest example of this alphabet and language is the Issyk inscription, found in Issyk kurgan and it is dated to 3rd-4th centuries B.C. Please make the necessary adjustments to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.252.176 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Tărtăria tablets - dated to be between 5300 BC - 7500 BC

Guys, Vinča symbols are the oldest known writing system which were used in the Balkan. Workers at the conservation department of the Cluj museum baked the originally unbaked clay tablets to preserve them. This made direct dating of the tablets themselves through carbon 14 method impossible. The Tărtăria tablets were found in 1961.

First attempt to date it: 2700 BC, however "subsequent radiocarbon dating on the Tărtăria finds pushed the date of the tablets (and therefore of the whole Vinča culture) much further back, to as long ago as 5500 BC."

Noone could decipher it yet, but the proof that it's a writing system is this: the writing method's still in use in some part of romania by a group of inhabitants in transylvania (szeklers - székelyek). And they still use almost the same system for their everyday life.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets http://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/Lisa2012/03files/Tartaria_Tablets.html

2012-03-27 - Martin Kertesz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonfish (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sinhala missing in the list

Sinhala script has been found as old as 6th Century BCE, and has a continuous history from that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhala_language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.2.59.6 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Raetian

Why is Raetian not on the list? Very probably it is connected to Etruscan together with Lemnian (where is this language, too, on the list?). There are a few inscriptions found from some hundred years B.C. in the Alps. Please insert them in the list!

--194.230.159.125 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki Language

Saraiki is also an oldest language written with arabic script from 712 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.31.144 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why tamil is downgraded to 300 BCE ?

when the information from Sathymoorthy from ASI is published with the reference of hindu article , still someone downgraded tamil to 300 BCE and trying to degrade the credibility of tamil language,

Please find what the article says as, Dr. Sathyamurthy said that the Brahmi script of around 500 B.C. had been found in Sri Lanka. Dr. S.U. Deraniyagala, former Director-General and now Consultant to the Archaeological Survey Department, Sri Lanka, called the discovery of the writing on the urns at Adichanallur "fantastic" and "very, very important." The evidence of writing on more than 75 pieces of pottery had been found in Sri Lanka and radio-carbon dating had established that they belonged to the period between 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. This discovery "sheds a completely new light on the origin of writing in South Asia," said Dr. Deraniyagala. Interestingly, there has been no evidence of habitation close to the cemeteries (burial sites) discovered there

reference , http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm

Please move up tamil language atleats to 500 BC.

Vivekhere (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article you refer to says nothing about the Tamil language. That the Brahmi script was used in Sri Lanka around 500 BC does not establish anything because other languages can be and have been written with the same script. We would need a source saying that these inscriptions from 500 BC are indeed in the Tamil language. - Lindert (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

Add language:

Belarusian: 1229 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_language#History NOTE: (1) with relation to before the 19th century also referred to as (Old) Belarusian or Ruthenian https://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#cite_note-evkl-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Belarusian_language#New_national_languages (2) by the middle of the 20th century, was also known as Ruthenian or Lithuanian [https://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#cite_note-evkl-8 https://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#cite_ref-katl_9-0 https://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#cite_note-10 https://be-x-old.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#cite_ref-12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Belarusian_language#Nomenclature ]

Fix language: Russian - c. 1000 The correct name is "Old East Slavic" to separate from Old Russian, which is one of the three of Old East Slavic language families [1]

Katlianik (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source for your first and second claim, and get consensus for your second change. Vacation9 13:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern French ?

In this article, there's Old French but what about modern French ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.78.147.103 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2013

Should add Guarani 1639 by Antonio Ruíz de Montoya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarani_alphabet 181.125.162.23 (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea – done. Kanguole 07:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision of Tamil's Position

Based on Wikipedia's article - Adichanallur, which talks about Tamil Brahmi scripts found engraved in artifacts dating back to 3800 years, I propose that Tamil's position in the list be updated. The Adichanallur article does have references in its footnotes Mr.Falcon (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

1800 BCE is the date of the skeletons found at the site. For the writing, we have a newspaper article quoting the archeologist saying his reading of a 7-letter inscription is tentative, and preliminary dating suggests it might date to circa 500 BCE, but C14 dating is required to be sure. So it looks promising, but is far from certain at this early stage. Kanguole 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the preliminary results reported in the newspaper are now 8 years old. One would expect something more definite by now. Kanguole 09:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian

First known complete sentence in Egyptian is indeed from Peribsen. That's all well and good. However nearly 3000 inscriptions before this text are known since the emergence of hieroglyphic script c. 3300 BC. Jochem Kahl lists them in his book "Das System der aegyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0. - 3. Dynastie". Even though these archaic inscriptions contain mostly only titles, proper names and commodities, they are undoubtedly in Egyptian language.

I guess what I really want to know is, what is the standard for this list? The first known full sentence of a language? If so, why is for example Greek listed at 1400 BC (Linear B). As far as I know Linear B was never used to write full sentences. I'm confused. Cheers,--WANAX (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to exclude names or single words as attestations of a language, as is done for Sumerian, Egyption, Akkadian, Luwian and the Proto-Sinaitic script inscriptions. As for Linear B, this paper mentions full sentences introducing some of the inventories: Ta 711 (p234), Tn 316 (p240). Both from Pylos, I think, which would be more like 1200 BC. Kanguole 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the info on Linear B.--WANAX (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Extinction

Shall we add markers showing the extinct languages in this list? I think it's rather useful to do so. 117.0.190.0 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Tamil is a oldest language

please change Tamil - c. 200 BC to 5000 BC because the oldest tamil book tholkappiam found in 5000 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolk%C4%81ppiyam

BalasubramanianMariappan (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. This would be revolutionary news if true, but a Wikipedia article is not acceptable as a source (and this one doesn't say that anyway). Kanguole 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sumerian date

Lately I have been doing some reading on the history of cuneiform and Sumerian language and it seems that Jemdet Nasr texts are ALL administrative or economic. They contain only lists of commodities and personal and place names and thus do not meet the criteria of this list (which I understand is the first connected sentence). Furthermore, because of their purely logographic nature, some scholars (Robert Englund) don't even see enough evidence identifying the language of these early texts.

I'm going to change the Sumerian date to 2600 BC (Abu Salabikh texts) unless someone objects or comes up with an evidence of an earlier Sumerian text which contains a full sentence.--WANAX (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, if the date can be supported by citations. According to the Cambridge Ancient Languages volume, there is one text each from Uruk and Ur that some interpret as literary while others consider a word list, but they date the earliest uncontested literary lexts at 2500 BC. Kanguole 13:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. See what you think. In Visible Language some royal inscriptions from c. 2700 BC are also mentioned, but it's unclear to me what kind of texts those are and whether or not they would meet the criteria of this list.--WANAX (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Based the following document http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/article2408091.ece The oldest written proof for Taml language is around 490 BCE Sravisankar1 (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is a newspaper article rather than a refereed article, but it also says the evidence is inconclusive. Besides, the inscription is said to be a single name, not a sample of Tamil language, and we don't count such fragments for other languages. Kanguole 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

The Sanskrit Language is not referred in this at all. In fact possibly it is world's first fully evolved scripted language. All the Vedic scripts are written in this. Sanskrit was found difficult for common people. Prakrit was evolved to suit the common. The word Prakrit meaning not Pure or not processed). Sanskrit means processed. There also no mention of "Ardhamagadhi" which was used by Jainism. This is about 1000 BC. Please correct your data 14.97.149.128 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Date for Altaic

If Altaic is a recognised language family, and if Turkic and Japonic are in it, then probably so should Korean. And if Korean is included, the first attestation of written Altaic should match the date for that language, which, according to the article, seems to be the 6th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.152.171.138 (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to do with disputed families like Altaic. Maybe we should just drop it and give Korean and Japonic. Kanguole 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Languages Alive Since BC with written account

Date of First Written Account	Language	Notes
c. 2690 BC	Egyptian	Extinct
c. 2600 – 2500 BC	Sumerian	Extinct
c. 2400 BC	Akkadian	Extinct
c. 2400 BC	Eblaite	Extinct
c. 2300 BC	Elamite	Extinct
c. 2100 BC	Hurrian	Extinct
c. 1650 BC	Hittite	Extinct
c. 1450 BC	Greek	Extinct
c. 1400 BC	Luwian	Extinct
c. 1400 BC	Hattic	Extinct
c. 1300 BC	Ugaritic	Extinct
c. 100 BC	Old Chinese	Extinct
c. 1000 BC	Phoenician	Extinct
c. 1000 - 900 BC	Aramaic	0.5 Mil Speakers Spoken in Syria, Iraq
c. 1000 - 900 BC	Hebrew	7.4 Mil Speakers Spoken in Gaza Strip, West Bank, Israel
c. 850 BC	Ammonite	Extinct
c. 840 BC	Moabite	Extinct
c. 800 BC	Phrygian	Extinct
c. 800 BC	Old North Arabian	Extinct
c. 800 BC	Old South Arabian	Extinct
c. 700 BC	Etruscan	Extinct
c. 700 BC - 600 BC	Latin	Extinct
c. 600 BC	Umbrian	Extinct
c. 600 BC	North Picene	Extinct
c. 600 BC	Lepontic	Extinct
c. 600 BC	Tartessian	Extinct
c. 600 BC	Lydian	Extinct
c. 600 BC	Carian	Extinct
c. 600 BC - 500 BC	Thracian	Extinct
c. 600 BC - 500 BC	Venetic	Extinct
c. 500 BC	Old Persian	Extinct
c. 500 BC	South Picene	Extinct
c. 500 BC	Messapian	Extinct
c. 500 BC	Gaulish	Extinct
c. 400 BC	Oscan	Extinct
c. 400 BC	Iberian	Extinct
c. 300 BC	Meroitic	Extinct
c. 300 BC	Faliscan	Extinct
c. 275 BC	Volscian	Extinct
c. 260 BC	Middle Indo	Extinct
c. 200 BC	Tamil	78 million Speakers , 70 Mil as L1 & 8 Mil as L2. Spoken in Tamil Nadu. Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala , Malaysia (Peninsular), Mauritius, Réunion, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand.
c. 200 BC	Galatian	Extinct
c. 130 – 170 BC	Pahlavi	Extinct
c. 100 BC	Celtiberian	Extinct

124.125.149.31 (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Greek language is spoken by 25 million people at least... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.186.11 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Tărtăria tablets

Hello. I was wondering whether the Vinča symbols shouldn't be added to the list. There might be controversy around them but what they most probably show is the first formation of a writing form. They should at least be mentioned, we could refer to the Wikipedia article for questions of the disputable authenticity. Zylbath (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of attested languages. What language is attested by those symbols, no-one can say. Indeed the consensus is that they don't encode language. Kanguole 07:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Corollary. An ancient language, people, and culture was omitted.

Aryan Vedics moved the Vedic Culture into India between 2000-1500 B.C This culture Used Sanskrit as thier Language. The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back to as early as 1700 BCE. Its unmentioned in the list. I Would like it Added to the List. Thank You. This came from The Library of Congress Country Studies For India Chapter 1 Library of Congress Call Number DS407 .I4465 1996 The pre-Classical form of Sanskrit is known as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved, its oldest core dating back to as early as 1700 BCE. Bullethead6 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the Rigveda, namely that manuscripts postdate the original composition by millennia, is discussed in the lead section. Kanguole 08:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition

Hello, please add kikongo: a catechism was published in 1557. Source : Balandier, Georges, Le royaume de Kongo du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle, Hachette, 1965, p. 58. And please correct accordingly, in the "by family" section. It should be "Niger-Congo" : 16th century (Kikongo)" and not "Niger–Congo (Bantu): 18th century". Thank you very much! DonCamillo (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusion over dates and section order

Forgive me if I'm off base on this:

The article has the heading/section, "Before 1000 BC" and then lists some languages (the Sumerian, Hurrian, Hattic and Elamite language isolates,) etc.

The next section is a table which begins with c. 2690 BC, Egyptian.

Since the BC date counts down toward zero, the dates make Egyptian appear older than Sumerian, etc.

Another Wikipedia page has Sumerian as "Attested from 3350 BC." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language)

There is something off here, and it adds unnecessary confusion.

Mithalwulf (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The table you refer to is in the same "Before 1000 BC" section. The text before the table is meant to be an overview and introduction to the detailed list of languages attested from that period. There is a contradiction between the dates for Sumerian here and in the infobox of the Sumerian language language, which arises from using different criteria. For both Egyptian and Sumerian there are periods of proto-writing, followed by administrative texts with names or lists, before the appearance of full sentences in the language. This article arranges languages by the oldest known full sentence, though the notes also mention incomplete attestations. In an attempt to reduce controversy, in most cases the specific attesting documents are also listed, with citations. Kanguole 10:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian?

@Kanguole: Do we have any first written accounts on Russian language? Jaqeli 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There's an entry for Old East Slavic, the common ancestor of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, but it specifies no attestation and has no citation. Kanguole 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Northwest-Caucasian seems to have older records

There seem to be older records, actually complete sentences, of Proto-Abkhazian/Circassian: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/Hesperia_83_3_Amazons_Mayor.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noct200 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but though it may seem so, that article does not say that this is accepted by most linguists. The authors are actually very careful in their conclusions: "This study has resulted in what we regard as plausible translations of non-Greek languages on Attic vases that were long thought to be meaningless scribbles.". Wikipedia requires a more unambiguous statement by a scholarly source that these inscriptions are indeed Proto-Abkhazian/Circassian or something like that. - Lindert (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Some additions

Date of First Written Account	Language	Notes
150 CE	Sanskrit	Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman I Ref: Page 45, Buddhist critical spirituality: Prajñā and Śūnyatā, by Shōhei Ichimura, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (2001), ISBN 81-208-1798-2, ISBN 978-81-208-1798-2

Also, please change the date of the earliest record in Tamil from 200 BC to 500 - 200 BC as some scholars believe a few Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions to be considerably older than Mauryan inscriptions. See [2] and [3]-117.193.202.87 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Added Sanskrit, but for Tamil we'd need better sources than newspaper reports, which in any case say that these dates are controversial. Also, the claimed inscriptions are one word in the first report and a few letters in the second, which wouldn't be enough to count as an attestation of language. Kanguole 10:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Earliest date of Telugu inscriptions needs to be updated as 400 BC inline with Wikipedia page on Telugu Language. QUOTE "Inscriptions containing Telugu words can be dated back to 400 BC to 100 BC. They were discovered in Bhattiprolu in Guntur district.The English translation of one inscription reads, "gift of the slab by venerable Midikilayakha". UNQUOTE Reference: para on 'Earliest records' Itharaju (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't count as reliable sources. The sourcing for the claim in that article is unclear. Kanguole 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Language tamil 4500 years older

Hi , the article clearly mentions that they are tamil letters. The archaeologist is trying to explain that the letters are similar to the letters found in sindh civilization area. so they are trying to relate sindh civilization and tamil civilization as one. it is well known fact that indus valley civilization is dravidian civilization.

Vivekhere (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it just says "Scripts on the stone were similar to the one found in Sind civilization." There is no mention of deciphering the script, or of language, just a suggestion that finding it in Tamil Nadu implies a connection between Tamil culture and the Indus Valley culture. In any case, a newspaper report isn't a very good source on archeology. Kanguole 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No. That Tamil existed 4,500 before present is a gross exaggeration based on unsupported claims. It is incorrect to use the label Tamil to replace the existing label Proto-Dravidian, because many existing Dravidian languages originated from the same proto-Dravidian dialect. This is an attempt to make Tamil look like the mother language of all other Dravidian languages. The name Tamil itself didn't exist before 1000 AD. Tamil is a modern language, it is not the same dialect used in the original ancient script Tholkappiam.Itharaju (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, It is incorrect to conclude Indus Valley Script was Dravidian. Indus script is not yet deciphered. IVC being Dravidian is only speculation, contrary to the findings of genome studies. Even if IVC is proven as Dravidian there are several Dravidian languages besides Tamil, like Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam. So it is incorrect to relate IVC with either Dravidian or Tamil.Itharaju (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

sanksrit language is world oldest language. its before 10,000 B.C from sanskrit tamil,hindi,telugu,bengali,kannada,malayalam.......... etc languages come. vedas nearly 1,00,000 years old books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.243.101 (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if true, which I doubt, this a list by written records of languages. Do you really think that we have written records from prehistory? Dimadick (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone please find the dates for Saka language and Gāndhārī language.Rajmaan (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

Under First Millenium section, please change the date for Tamil language to 500 BC. Reference & confirmation can be taken the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language - Footnote 22 (http://www.thehindu.com/2005/02/17/stories/2005021704471300.htm) Manikandan197 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The provided reference is a news article from 2005, which provides only tentative claims. It explicitly states: "The claim on the date of the script and the assertion that it is in Tamil-Brahmi will be subjected to the scrutiny of scholars in the field.". Ten years have passed since this was written, so by now there should be some scholarly source available to confirm that that assertion if scholars have indeed accepted this. - Lindert (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

|- | c. 400BC|| Telugu || Bhattiprolu inscription || Sevvakula (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The cited source does not mention Bhattiprolu, and indeed says the first Telugu inscription is dated 575 AD from Erragudipadu. The Bhattiprolu incriptions are in Pakrit; if they contain some Telugu names, that would not meet the crieria for this list. Kanguole 12:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References