Talk:List of languages by first written account/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Primitive Irish

I tried to insert Primitive Irish into the table some time ago, but User:Kanguole reverted my edit ([1]), claiming that Primitive Irish did not meet the criteria for the page, because it requires full sentences rather than just isolated words. Well, I've gone and done a bit of research on this and I can find many examples of Ogham inscriptions which are full sentences. See here for instance: [2], where it gives an example of the text as "maqqi iari koi maqqi muccoi dovvinias", which has been translated as "The son of Iar [lies] here, son of the tribe of Dovinias" (it is presumed to be a grave marker). That's six words and clearly a complete sentence. You can see full details about this inscription here: [3], where the dating is given as "366 to 466 AD" (so 4th or 5th century). There are plenty of other similar examples. So I think Primitive Irish should be on the list (let me make it clear that Primitive Irish is a separate language from Old Irish, in that it's much closer to Common Celtic). --Hibernian (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these grave inscriptions are limited to "X, son of Y, son of the tribe of Z", but nine of them also contain the word koi, which is absent from Old Irish, but is generally interpreted as a word for 'here'. Dating of the inscriptions is problematic, but two of these might be dated somewhere between the late 4th century and the late 5th: [4] and [5]. (The CISP database cites McManus (1991), pp. 93–94 for the dating; the original statement, referring to a group of 30-odd incriptions, is "it is unlikely that they are much older than the fifth century and they may belong to the first or early part of the second half of it, though some could possibly date from the late fourth century." Ziegler doesn't seem to date any of them earlier than the 5th century.) Anyway, with the extra word it is nearly a complete sentence, but lacks a verb. Kanguole 01:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well sounds like you're splitting hairs there. The text can certainly be read as a sentence. And even if only one of the inscriptions qualifies, then an entry is required. --Hibernian (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the criteria require only one complete sentence. This inscription is almost a sentence, but reading it as one requires the insertion of a verb. Kanguole 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Elliptical sentences are sentences all right. So no true argument there. That's just your interpretation of what a sentence should look like. If this were true, sentences formed like the ablativa absoluta in latin (e.g. Sulla occupata urbe = When Sulla conquered the city...), say, wouldn't be considered sentences either...Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Latin example is beside the point. Did Old Irish permit elision of verbs? There are multiple sources testifying to the limited linguistic content of these memorial inscriptions. Kanguole 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Again, you simply don't know if it did (I don't know either, although I would find it higly improbable if it didn't, but then again that's just an educated guess). I really can't see the relevance of your last remark. The elliptical nature of a sentence does not make it "a quasi sentence" by any definition and it is ludicrous to suggest that this is not a sentence. As to the new criterion you introduce to somehow maintain your original view that it shouldn't be included, I should note that the merits of its "linguistic content" (that's a new one) are multiple (morphological, syntactical, etymological, semantic...) I could argue that there are quite some interesting pieces of linguistic information that can be gleaned even from simple onomastica. And at the end of the day, even the earliest old egyptian inscriptions amount to little more than a collection of names, nouns, adjectives sprinkled with an occasional posessive structure... probably we should omit this too following your line of reasoningGiorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That we don't know what a Primitive Irish sentence looks like is kind of the point – no complete sentences in the language are known. Name lists and inventories certainly do provide some linguistic information, but they are not complete sentences, which is the criterion for this list. It's true that the earliest Egyptian inscriptions don't meet this criterion either, and that is why they are excluded from the list. Kanguole 12:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet again this is just a play with semantics. You are somehow creating a dichotomy between "complete sentences" vs "non-complete sentences". This is just you deciding that pattently elliptical sentences [as this one most certainly is] are not sentences proper just because they don't make us any wiser about the verbal system of Old Irish. [Of course my impression is that they can tell us a lot more than what you imply...]. I won't persue this further because in all probability my arguments will be picked up by every fringe editor bent on including the most frivolous attestation of every real or imagined language conceivable, but I do beg to differ on the real merits of such inclusion criteria Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm minded to add an entry for Primitive Irish to the page again then. It is certainly untrue that the Ogham inscriptions "consist of isolated personal names" only, there are sentences on at least some of them and I believe that meets the criteria for inclusion. You were comparing the language to Latin, and well, I'm no linguist but the Wikipedia article clearly says: "Transcribed ogham inscriptions,... show Primitive Irish to be similar in morphology and inflections to Gaulish, Latin, Classical Greek and Sanskrit". i.e. it has many of the same features of other ancient Indo-European languages, and had not yet developed most of the distinct features of Old Irish. You two seem to be confusing Old and Primitive Irish, but as I said, they are separate. Primitive Irish was an older (archaic) form being used solely as a literary language by the Early Middle Ages, and only in the 8th/9th century was it superseded by a newer tradition of writing the then vernacular language (Old Irish). I'm not challenging the dating for written Old Irish (~750 AD), I'm saying there was a previous written tradition that needs to be mentioned. -- Hibernian (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We can't rely on Wikipedia articles. Forsyth, in Celtic Culture: a Historical Encyclopedia (J.T. Koch ed.) p.1390 says these inscriptions "consist of a male personal name in the genitive case with patronymic and/or familial affiliation." McManus A Guide to Ogam p.51 says they are "a mere record of the name of the person commemorated with or without that of his father or some indication of sept or tribal affinity." He also mentions the word koi in a few inscriptions, analysed as the locative of the pronoun *ke/*ko with meaning "here". So they show some inflectional morphology, but not sentences. Kanguole 01:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, "used solely as a literary language" seems not to be supported by the sources. Koch postulates that the inscriptions were based on a conservative register spoken by an elite group, but that's quite a different matter. And "written tradition" usually implies rather more than we have here. Kanguole 11:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Skyifictionable: The text you re-inserted says that these inscriptions consist of personal names, so you apparently concede that they do not meet the inclusion criteria for this list. Kanguole 16:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kanguole. I'm unable to find evidence of any Ogham inscription containing a complete sentence (a subject + a verb). And that's what this this article is all about: complete sentences, not elliptical sentences. We can argue about how reasonable the inclusion criteria of this list is, but a consensus would be needed to change it and there is none. I'll revert the article accordingly. --WANAX (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Canaanitic

is known from as early as the 20th century BC. Why no mention?

Proto-Sinaitic script#Proto-Canaanite inscriptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.55.181 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

They are mentioned:

The earliest known alphabetic inscriptions, at Serabit el-Khadim (c. 1500 BC), appear to record a Northwest Semitic language, though only one or two words have been deciphered.

That's not enough for the list, though. Kanguole 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Telugu

The proposed earlier dates for Telugu[6] have two problems beyond the formatting: the sources offered are very weak, and in any case all they claim is a few isolated words, which would not meet the criteria for this list. Kanguole 15:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not so much the number of words, but the nature of the sources. I would very much like to read the original research report as well as expert reviews of it — by archaeologists and linguists. Also: If the new findings seem to point to a first inscription in a Dravidian language that is 975 years older that the one for Telugu on our list, what is the evidence that this inscription is not in another (extinct) Dravidian language? LiliCharlie (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Khoisan Languages: 60.000 years-old

The most ancient languages known come from the Khoisan tree, and unfortunatelly they forgot to put here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.156.194.147 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of written attestations of language. Kanguole 01:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ge'ez

The source cited for the current date (Gragg 2008: 214) also says that the pre-Axumite inscriptions dating from the 6th century BC are in Old South Arabian. Kanguole 01:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the user probably took the Ge'ez script for the homonymous language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

List of first attestations by language family

I was reverted for removing Basque so my question is: if Basque is to be included in this list, may I add other language isolates too? Sumerian, Elamite etc. If so shouldn't we then change the introductory text: "Attestation by major language family"? One other thing: I'm just a hobby linguist and I'm confused with the difference between the terms "language family" and "family of languages". I tried to search for "family of languages" but it redirects to "language family" article. Could someone please elaborate on the subject. Cheers, --WANAX (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Family of languages" implies more than one language whereas "language family" doesn't. Language family is merely a taxon (similar to a biological family that may consist of only one species). Also consider this: A language family that consists of only an isolate becomes a family of languages as soon as the language is recognized to have forked into several languages, which is often difficult to determine. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. The question of the inclusion criteria of this list remains to be solved. I'd say no to language isolates, as they are by default already included on the main list. However I don't have strong feelings about this issue one way or the other. We should just remove the word "major" from the introduction if they are to be included. --WANAX (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your view. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit

Why the oldest Indian language Sanskrit is not included? It came in 2000 BCE, see sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.16.174 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned at 150 AD. The situation with Vedic Sanskrit is discussed in the second paragraph of the introduction. Kanguole 19:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not clear. Sources that appear Google mention Sanskrit as the oldest language, but in this article nothing is written about that. Which is the oldest, Sanskrit or Egyptian in your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.118.244 (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

1. It's not a matter of opinion. 2. This list is about first written accounts, not language age. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian

@Ivorrusev: You added an entry for Bulgarian in c. 885 AD. There is already an entry for Old Church Slavonic in c. 862 AD. Would it be possible to fuse the two and call them "Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian), or is it strictly necessary to consider them as two separate languages? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Old Church Slavonic article, the alternative names Old Bulgarian and Old Macedonian have been moved from the lead to a Nomenclature section, because they are not widely used in English. For similar reasons it would probably be best to just say OCS here. Kanguole 01:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation from the History of the Bulgarian language article: Although "Old Bulgarian" is still used in a number of sources with the meaning "Old Church Slavonic", there is a growing tendency for the name to be applied only to the language of manuscripts from the First Bulgarian Empire (Bulgarian editions of Old Church Slavonic), excluding manuscripts from other editions. I wasn't aware of this change in terminology either, and would like to know who observes it, and on what grounds other than political affiliation. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what the "Old" part of OCS means, as distinct from Church Slavonic, i.e. Old Bulgarian is the term for OCS preferred by Bulgarian linguists? In any case, the texts listed here under OCS and Bulgarian are all from the First Bulgarian Empire. Kanguole 10:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

Please change "late 5th century" to "c. 434" and move it one line up (under Georgian). I am refering to Armenian language.

Iamaninfj (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. The bible was traditionally translated in 434, but the oldest extant manuscript is from 887. The late 5th century date refers to inscriptions that are the oldest surviving examples of Armenian writing. Kanguole 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 23:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

Please add these languages under Indo-European Family tree, under BY FAMILY section, the information is incomplete at the moment:

• 37th century BC - Tocharian
• 28th century BC - Armenian
• 14th century AD - Albanian

check here for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

Iamaninfj (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done These aren't dates of written attestations of the languages. Kanguole 15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

I would like to send my humble request to kindly reconsider about the Tamil language's first written record to the new found excavation data. Which is around 500 BCE, please refer to this article, which states that the 2013's excavation on the site called, Kodumanal in Tamil Nadu, India, An Archaeological team found trenches and pots which contains about 500 Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions on it. I believe that, this evidence will be enough to push the Tamil's first written record to 300 centuries back from the given 200 BCE timeline.

The source is :http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/kodumanal-reveals-more-hidden-gems/article4731632.ece

kindly have a look at that published article from a leading news paper in India and do the needful changes on the Wiki article, named as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts"

Thank you for your valuable time,

With Regards, Prasanna.Tamizhan Prasanna.Tamizhan (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

For such a revolutionary claim, we'd want a stronger source such as a refereed scientific article, rather than a newspaper, but even this source does not make that claim. It says the site spans the period from the 5th to the 1st centuries BCE, but doesn't say where the inscriptions date from within that range. Kanguole 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Article preamble - superfluous text

Re the paragraphs on language development in the preamble. I feel they have very little to do with the subject in hand a: List of languages by first written account. I sub-sectioned the text under the heading Language development , in Revision as of 23:03, 11 March 2016, but it's been reverted. So I might as well ask, are the following paragraphs relevant to the article's purpose, and if not does someone fance reinstating their subsectioning?

A written record may encode a stage of a language corresponding to an earlier time, either as a result of oral tradition, or because the earliest source is a copy of an older manuscript that was lost. An 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 may date to c. 1500 BC,[1] while the oldest known manuscript dates to the 11th century AD, a gap of over 2,500 years. Similarly the oldest Avestan texts, the Gathas, are believed to have been composed before 1000 BC, but the oldest Avestan manuscripts date from the 13th century AD.[2]
   
Because of the way languages change gradually, it is usually impossible to pinpoint when a given language began to be spoken. In many cases, some form of the language had already been spoken (and even written) considerably earlier than the dates of the earliest extant samples provided here.  

A.j.roberts (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a stand-alone list, and as usual for such, consists of a list of things preceded by a lead that explains the criteria for membership of the list. In this case, the lead begins with a requirement for a complete sentence and the exclusion of undeciphered scripts. The inclusion criteria are further clarified in the next two paragraphs (reproduced above):

• The first explains why languages with an ancient oral tradition are not assigned the early date that some might expect. The case of Sanskrit is the most commonly raised, but there are many others.
• The second explains how the list handles the often-arbitrary stages imposed on an evolving language that is recorded over a long period of time.

This list is continually subject to pushes for earlier dates for various languages, so it is vital to set out the inclusion criteria clearly in the lead. Kanguole 17:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

TAMIL IS THE WORLD FIRST LANGUAGE

"Thiruvalluvar" is a celebrated Tamil poet and philosopher whose contribution to Tamil literature is the Thirukkural, he lived sometime between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century BC .so as per this and evidence we have given a clear view about the tamil language is the oldest language not only this say that the language is oldest we have the evidence that "lord murugan" how is the son of "lord shiva" is the leader of tamil language wher it was descriped by "a female poet" name "Avvaiyar" who is the devote of "lord murugan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.40.203 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as you fail to provide reliable sources for any of your claims no changes will be made to the article. N.B.: If you are several persons ("evidence we have given") Wikipedia cannot accept your edits because every single editor has to agree to our licence terms. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Grakliani Georgian

Please add "Grakliani Georgian" for 7th century BC. a writing on a stone has been discovered in eastern Georgia in 2015.

Gocha06051998 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is a list of languages and no language has been identified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

I want to slide the date of the first written account of Old Turkic to last quarter of 6th century because of the Turkic Khaganate coins made around the same date (Although in Sogdian) I just pointed out which also used Turkic titles.

See : https://www.academia.edu/28591526/Babayarov_G._THE_OLD_TURKIC_TITLES_QAGHAN_JABGHU_AND_JABGU-QAGHAN_ON_THE_COINS_OF_THE_WESTERN_TURKIC_QAGHANATE Tumankaghan (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Also please consider the introduction: "This is a list of languages [...] recording a complete sentence in the language. [...] It also does not include [...] isolated words or names from a language." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive time

@Kanguole: Keeping in-active discussions open for 6 months is ridiculous, how can this be a benefit ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, on this page the same issues get raised over and over again. Being able to see the last time someone proposed to add language X and what the response was can help avoiding repeating the conversation. Having an empty talk page is not a worthwhile end in itself. Kanguole 16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I wonder why talk headers and archive boxes have search boxes ? Your talk page's inactive discussion are archives in 14 day intervals humm.... - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps my talk page is different from this one, and different considerations apply in different places. The purpose of archiving is to ensure that talk pages do not become unwieldy, not to hide old discussions as a matter of course. Yes, there is a search box, but the target here is yet another person who wants to propose a particular date for language X. We know that's come up 20 times before, but they won't. Having it in the table of contents will help. Kanguole 16:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Whats the difference between "This has already been discussed (see above)" and "This has already been discussed (see here)" ? all the while, scrolling through discussions that are not being re-hashed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that the person about to propose adding language X sees language X in the table of contents, before they post. If someone wants to add a new section, there's a button for that at the top of the screen, no need to scroll. Kanguole 17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nsibidi should be in this list

The Nsibidi is one of the oldest written languages we know of

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi

It is an elaborate writing system that is overlooked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikom_monoliths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp2000ng (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of languages but Nsibidi isn't a language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Basque inscriptions from 3rd-5th centuries AD found at Iruña-Veleia are not forgeries

In the article, it is stated that "alleged finds of c. 300 Basque inscriptions at Iruña-Veleia have been exposed as a forgery". The fact is that there is absolutely no proof that the graffiti written in Basque language found at the archaeological site of Iruña-Veleia and stratigraphically dated in the 3rd-5th centuries AD are forgeries. The findings were made during a professional archaeological excavation at the site of the ancient Roman city of Veleia by an experienced team of archaeologists who performed a correct stratigraphic dating, according to Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the team of Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/harris/Info-Harris.pdf; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be. The authenticity of the inscriptions has also been supported by French linguists Hector Iglesias https://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/file/index/docid/425473/filename/artxiker-Veleia.pdf and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan http://www.veleia.com/adjuntos/veleiaNoticias/88_adjunto1.pdf. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, the Basque graffiti found at Iruña-Veleia should be considered to be genuinely from the late Roman period.

Mmthomson (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody has made any comment contrary to my criticism of the accuracy of the sentence "alleged finds of c. 300 Basque inscriptions at Iruña-Veleia have been exposed as a forgery", I have removed it from the text of the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmthomson (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible Hebrew on Egyptian tablets

Somebody might consider adding information about the stone tablets Sinai 115, Wadi el-Hol 1 and 2, and the Lahun Bilingual Ostracon at some point, either as an item or in a note. There has been a press release, which is discussed by the Science News article. I'm not sure if a peer-reviewed paper is available. If not, this might be something to be aware of for possible future inclusion.

Inscriptions on the Egyptian stone tablets Sinai 115, Wadi el-Hol 1 and 2, and the Lahun Bilingual Ostracon. (Science News 2016; https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oldest-alphabet-identified-hebrew) OtterAM (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sure several of our editors are aware of these tablets, but at this point the second sentence of the article applies. ("It does not include undeciphered scripts, though there are various claims without wide acceptance...") Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sinai 115

When reading Egyptian heiroglyphs, the humans and animals face the direction from which the glyphs are to be read. According to Douglas Petrovich in his book "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Sinai 115 is a combination of Middle Egyptian glyphs and proto-consonantal-Hebrew letters. (Douglas Petrovich, "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Carta Jerusalem, 2016, pages 15-29.) His translation is "6 Levantines: Hebrews of Bethel, the Beloved" (p. 16). In the second line the birds face right, but Petrovich reads it from the left. My translation is "To Itjtawy: six Hebrews for Geb, his servants." (--47.185.138.150 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Eve Engelbrite) Itjtawy was the capital of the twelfth dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.138.150 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2017 time, (UTC)

Wadi el-Hol 1

According to Douglas Petrovich in his book "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Wadi el-Hol 1 is one line of seventeen proto-consonantal-Hebrew letters. (Douglas Petrovich, "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Carta Jerusalem, 2016, pages 36-45.) His translation is "Wine is more abundant than the daylight, than the baker, than a freeman" (p. 39). The "aleph" auroch/ox head is facing left, but Petrovich reads it from the right. Reading it from the left, I translate it as "Mercy, blow away the covering of sorrow (sand), I pray, respond lest I'm buried." (--47.185.138.150 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Eve Engelbrite) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.138.150 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2017 time, (UTC)

Wadi el-Hol 2

According to Douglas Petrovich in his book "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Wadi el-Hol 2 is one line of thirteen proto-consonantal-Hebrew letters read top to bottom. (Douglas Petrovich, "The World's Oldest Alphabet," Carta Jerusalem, 2016, pages 45-51.) His translation is "Surrounding the crooked one, your afflicter, is God" (p. 45). My translation is "That enclosure, the marked out (circumscribed) room: proud accomplishment." (--47.185.138.150 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Eve Engelbrite) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.138.150 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2017 time, (UTC)

Not peer reviewed nor accepted by the academic community

His book isn't peer reviewed and it's been largely ignored by the academic community - I can only find this. It isn't surprising that a Creationist wants there to have been Hebrew in the Sinai. His qualifications have been overstated. For instance, you'll find claims he teaches at Wilfred Laurier. Well, it's sort of true, but he isn't a regular teacher there. See this and scroll down to HI299E: ANCIENT EGYPT (WINTER) where is is given no title. But at HI121: ANCIENT HISTORY IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT (WINTER) you'll see a real professor with the title. And the course he is teaching is not a standard part of the curriculum. Note its number if HI299E, and "Courses carrying special numbers (HI299, HI346, HI496) are established when a faculty member has an interest in pursuing a topic of study that is not part of our regular course offerings." You'll find stuff about an ASOR conference and a presentation of his there. Yes, Petrovich was one of many ASOR members giving presentations. Any member may present a paper, presentation doesn't mean approval.[7] He seems to be one of about 233 particpants giving 20 minute presentations.[8] See this response to a blog piece he wrote.[9] He states that he was the academic dean at Novosibirsk Biblical-Theological Seminary in Akademgorodok, Russia, which is true. It was his "seminary" and the title was self-bestowed.Doug Weller talk 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

See also this review. Kanguole 12:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Language families

I have reverted the addition of a language family column to the first three tables, because it is a secondary datum and takes up too much space in the tables and makes them hard to use. The tables ought to be limited to things directly relevant to the attestation. There is a separate "By family" section for earliest attestations of families. (Also, the introduction to the first section discusses the affiliation of the earliest-attested languages. Kanguole 22:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, I thought it was a nice edition, and it didn't make the tables harder to use for me, but I guess your mileage varies. Fair enough. —Pinnerup (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I also thought it was a very nice addition, but it works either way for me. Mlewan (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ago of sources

@Kanguole: Thanks for the revert. I'm wondering about the age of some of these sources but don't have time to see if there is more recent information that changes any of the dates. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

Tamil is the oldest language dating to 6th century and find below the findings and update them as requested Tamil-Brahmi inscription on pottery found in Phu Khao Thong, Thailand, 2nd century CE. Touchstone (uraikal) engraved in Tamil in the Tamil-Brahmi script at Khuan Luk Pat, 3rd-4th century CE.[28] Potsherds with Tamil Brahmi inscriptions found in Poonagari, Jaffna, 2nd century BCE.[29] Black and red ware potsherd with Tamil Brahmi inscriptions in Ucchapanai, Kandarodai, Jaffna, 3rd century BCE.[30][31] Tamil Brahmi inscriptions on a pot rim at Pattanam, central Kerala, 2nd century CE.[32][33] Four Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, 3rd century CE, found on Edakal cave, Ambukuthi hill, Kerala. One contained the word ‘Chera' (‘kadummipudha chera'), the earliest inscriptional evidence of the dynasty Chera.[34] Potsherd with Tamil-Brahmi script found in Oman. The script reads “nantai kiran” and it can be dated to the 1st century CE.[35] A fragment of black and red ware flat dish inscribed in Tamil in the Tamil Brahmi script excavated at the earliest layer in southern eastern town of Tissamaharama in Sri Lanka. It is dated to approximately 200 BC by German scholars who undertook the excavation. Tamil Brahmi script dating to 500 BC found at Kodumanal, Chennimalai near Erode[36] Tamil-Brahmi script dating to 500 BC found at Porunthal site is located 12 km South West of Palani[37] Rajeshssme (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify the inscriptions you believe are earlier, with reliable sources. The above extract from Tamil-Brahmi#Significant Tamil Brahmi findings is insufficient. Kanguole 11:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of languages by first written accounts. 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/20111003195005/http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum18%28pdf%29/34%20Shelmerdine.pdf to http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum18(pdf)/34%20Shelmerdine.pdf

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) 02:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Tamil and Sanskrit are older

According to the same website Wikipedia, Tamil belongs to 600BC to various sangams and Thirukural, Silappatikaram and Maṇimēkalai which are of older tamil and I don't consider any difference in two of them. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tamil_language and if you want to see external links then see https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tirukkural,

Similarly fro Sanskrit, I don't consider any difference about Vedic and normal one. According to Rig veda it dates back to 2000 BC. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit also see http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2008/01/date-of-rig-veda.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasma358 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is about the approximate texts of the oldest existing texts. You're confusing that with estimated dates of composition - the texts aren't that old. We also don't use blogs or Wikipedia articles as sources. You're using Old Tamil language as a source but it says "The earliest records in Old Tamil are short inscriptions from between the 3rd and 2nd century BC in caves and on pottery". Doug Weller talk 15:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

and "6th century" in the Britannica article refers to the 6th century AD. Kanguole 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Old Indo-Aryan attested in Mitanni documents

It is accepted that an Old Indo-Aryan superstrate is attested in Mitanni documents dating to the mid second millennium BCE. Why is this language not in the list? (gnanvit (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

Perhaps because they do not meet the criteria for this list: "texts recording a complete sentence in the language". Kanguole 12:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok do we have a separate section (or an article) listing languages by their dates of attestation (any form of attestation)? Because it seems we would be excluding a few languages by this criterion, even though they are attested from a very early date. (gnanvit (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC))

That would be a quite different list, and a hard one to manage. There are a few mentions of earlier fragments in the "Notes" column next to the first full attestation, e.g. Hittite, Luwian, but the time gap is much bigger in this case, so it's a quite different language. Kanguole 17:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

First Finnish attestation

The top of this article reads "This is a list of languages arranged by the approximate dates of the oldest existing texts recording a complete sentence in the language." However, there is an earlier attestation of a complete sentence in Finnish than Abckiria that is documented even on the Finnish language article, albeit it is only a single sentence: Mÿnna tachton gernast spuho somen gelen emÿna daÿda translating to "i want to speak Finnish, [but] I am not able" (the sentence has some grammatical mistakes). The particular sentence is from around 1450, almost a hundred years earlier than Abckiria. Would this count? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 14:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Before any concerns come about about the language of the sentence not resembling Finnish, it's simply the orthography that is different - in the modern orthography, that exact same sentence would be written Minä tahdon kernaasti puhua suomen kielen, en minä taida, with grammatical fixes applied the sentence becomes Minä tahdon kernaasti puhua suomen kieltä, mutta en minä taida. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

The earliest written work in Hausa dates to the mid 1600's. Riyawar Annabi Musa, written by Abdullahi Suka in The Hausa language using the Arabic script. 65.75.97.47 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Kanguole 12:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The Oldest Language

There is lot of oldest languages in this list.... But can you update the latest report of oldest languages because its wrong in this wikipedia Rktheking (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems you didn't bother to read the lead section: "In most cases, some form of the language had already been spoken (and even written) considerably earlier than the dates of the earliest extant samples provided here." — This page isn't about langage age at all. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies for Romance

The Romance component of the Oaths of Strasbourg is written in old Gallo-Romance, not in Old French (which would be the precursor of Modern French).

The Placiti Cassinesi are not in Italian, but in the vernacular of Center-South Italy, distinct then and now from the Tuscan from which Italian derives.

The Catalan text is known as Jurament de Radulf Oriol. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Old French...

Where would you propose to draw the distinction between "Gallo-Romance" and "Old French"? Being that:

The Gallo-Romance language used in the Oaths of Strasbourg is, indeed, precisely that: a very early precursor to modern French, discernibly distinct from Latin by this point in history. Indeed, this regional form of Gallo-Romance was not called "French" in its time (much as the dialectical continuum of Anglo-Saxon languages was not referred to as "English" during this same period, but only in retrospect), but was contemporaneously referred to as something akin to "the rustic Romance of the Franks" — i.e., a degenerated form of the Roman language (e.g., Latin) spoken by the country folk in Francia — whereas "Frankish", per se, was the old Germanic language still spoken in the northwesternmost regions of the empire, an ancestor to Modern Dutch and only very distantly related to this Gallo-Romance through common prehistoric Indo-European roots. Hence, this Gallo-Romance was, at the time, often simply called "Romance"; and as with Anglo-Saxon being dubbed Old English (i.e., a direct ancestor to our Modern English), so is Gallo-Romance likewise dubbed Old French.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French Key of Now (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

First attestation of Old English

I notice that this article places the oldest attestation of the Anglo-Saxon language (Old English) at c. CE 700 with the Franks Casket; whereas the The Law of Æthelberht was composed in the early 7th Century—

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Æthelberht

—indicating that it predates the Franks Casket by roughly a century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_Casket

Is this because the oldest surviving copy of this legal code dates only from the 12th Century? Key of Now (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This not not a list of text composition dates, but of existing text recordings, usually inscriptions or manuscripts. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Key of Now (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

albania is from 1900 Anxhelo12341 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The article has a much older account sourced. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please resolve this page vis-a-vis the "Egyptian Language" page

I tried to make an edit to this page to make it consistent with the information here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language The Egyptian Language page has cited information of the language existing about 3400 BC. I added that citation to this page. My edit was reverted. See this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts&oldid=prev&diff=627475386 The revert notice from Kanguole says that the 3400 BC date is somewhere in "Notes", but I see no such note with that date or, indeed, any information about Seth-Peribsen in the page. All that was done was to revert my edit. Please, someone, fix either this page or the Egyptian Language page. Right now, they are inconsistent. AristosM (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Seth-Peribsen is in the 'Attestation' column, and the 'Notes' column reads: '"proto-hieroglyphic" inscriptions from about 3300 BC (Naqada III; see Abydos, Egypt, Narmer Palette).' — Please note that the simple.WP source is not an academic one but a New York Times article that doesn't even say if 'some writings dating back to 3400 B.C.' fit our criterion of 'oldest existing texts recording a complete sentence in the language.' What the article does say is this: 'But we have to wait for further evidence.' Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Tamil has scripts dating back to 5000 B.C. hence, that needs to be changed in the table. Tamil is the oldest language in the world as of now. There is no script as old as Tamil. 129.2.181.121 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please read the following discussions of written Early Tamil on this page: #Tamil inscription belongs to 5th century BC, # Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017, and # Tamil and Sanskrit are older. Also note that Proto-Dravidian, the proto-language of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu, and all the other Dravidian languages, is thought to have "started disintegrating into various branches around 3rd millennium BCE." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Date: C 600 BC Language : Tamil Attestation : Tamil names inscribed potsherds at Keezhadi, Tamilnadu

Reference : https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/keeladi-findings-traceable-to-6th-century-bce-report/article29461583.ece BhaskaranSukumaran (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is a list of "oldest existing texts recording a complete sentence in the language," so reconstructed isolated names on potsherds are not covered here. Besides, we require reliable (usu. scholarly) sources, not a newspaper article. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. This page has gone from written accounts to written sentences. Real western-biased page. Hari147 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What you write has massive implications for the entire list. For example, Ancient Roman authors, who wrote in Latin, were the first to record Germanic (as well as many other) personal names. Do you mean to imply that those recordings were the first written accounts in a Germanic language? And if only personal names could be identified on the potsherds found at Keezhadi: Is there a way to show which language the authors actually used? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Santali language under 19th century. The first written attestation of this language is from the mid-19th century. —47.156.8.159 (talk)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I managed to find sourcing for an entry. Kanguole 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The oldest languages list is wrong kindly recheck and updates Rktheking (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tamil is a oldest language while you guys don't give credit for it while many scientists are accepted it Nambiraj Reddy (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

The Period of Tamil language is 26 th Century DineshKK2496 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Old Nubian

Old Nubian is fairly well attested and understood language which is distinct from Meroitic. Meroitic may be related to the Nubian languages, and Meroitic has only been partially deciphered, but Rilly seems fairly certain that Old Nubian is not descended from Meroitic, but is the language of later (Nubian) tribes, such as the ones that invaded the Kingdom of Moroë in the Fourth Century and those that ruled the area in the sixth century. According to Rilly, the last Meroitic inscriptions were from the fifth century A.D. (after which Greek was used somewhat in the area). On page 198, Rilly writes the following about the date of the earliest Old Nubian texts:

"The earliest datable text in Old Nubian is from AD 797 (Łatjar 1997: 117), although another document, a Coptic/Old Nubian papyrus, seems older on palaeographical grounds (Browne 1993)."

Rilly, Claude (2008). "The Last Traces of Meroitic? A Tentative Scenario for the Disappearance of the Meroitic Script". In Baines, John; Bennet, John; Houston, Stephen (eds.). The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication. London: Equinox Publishing. pp. 183–205.

These are his citations.

Łatjar, Adam 1997 ‘Greek Funerary Inscriptions from Old Dongola: General Notes’. Oriens Christianus 81: 107–26.

Browne, Gerald M. 1993 ‘A Papyrus Document in Coptic and Old Nubian’. Journal of Juristic Papyrology 23: 29–32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.74.95 (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

From Łatjar 1997[10], it appears that the Old Nubian content of the 797 text (Epitaph of Stephanos, transcribed on pp. 118–119) is five personal names in a Greek text. Thus it is an attestation of the Old Nubian script, but not of the Old Nubian language, at least according to the criteria used for this page. Kanguole 16:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

Tamil is the oldest language, in fact, it is the mother of all the languages. The people were in literature, culture etc in Lemuria continent. However due to various reason they migrated to various part of world. The recent archaeological evidence from Keeladi reveals that the script used in Indus Valley are Tamil Brahmi script and is nothing but Tamil script(Indus script). It proves that the people from south most (present) India migrated towards (present) North India, Middle east, Africa, Australia etc. The language spoken by migrants was Tamil and it got different shape, pronunciation etc. Many literature in Tamil have mentioned about Kumari continent (Lemuria). Therefore it is concrete that Tamil is the oldest language. Sivaramkrishnansudharssen (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is a list of "oldest existing texts recording a complete sentence in the language," not a list of languages by age. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicely sidestepped. —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tamil inscription belongs to 5th century BC

Request editing the entry for Tamil. The earliest inscription so far is from 5th century BCE. Please see Tamil-Brahmi.--செல்வா (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Which inscription is that, and what sources describe it? Kanguole 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I had given the link : Tamil-Brahmi. Thanks. --செல்வா (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave a link to a Wikipedia page. For this list, we need a particular inscription that meets the list criteria, with a reliable source describing it. Kanguole 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Reference here http://www.thehindu.com/2005/02/17/stories/2005021704471300.htm for 500BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivashambo (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a newspaper article reporting tentative reading and dating, and saying both need to be confirmed. Such a major claim needs stronger sourcing. If these claims had been confirmed, the 13 years since this article is more than time enough for a report in the academic literature. Kanguole 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if it were academically confirmed that this seven-letter inscription refers to a "[n]ame of hero", it wouldn't meet the requirement formulated in the third sentences of our article: "It [i.e. this list] also does not include inscriptions consisting of isolated words or names from a language." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I gave proper citations and linked the recent 5th excavation at Keezhadi excavation site where inscritptions with more than a sentence has been found. Also pottery inscriptions with personnel names. It was already proved that Tamizhi or Tamil-Brahmi as some "experts" call it is older than atleast 6th Century BCE. why is it removed? I also added pictures of it but it seems that the vevision is already reverted.. Need proper explanation. Sgky2k (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Of the instances you cited:

• The article by Mahadevan mentions the Anaikoddai seal, saying the excavators date it to 3rd century BC. It has a line of three Brahmi script characters, whose interpretation is under debate.
• The Deccan Chronicle and Hindu articles cite archaeologists dating a terracotta weight holder to c. 500 BC. The meaning is conjectured to be 'meditating hermit'. The Hindu article says Mahadevan and Subbarayalu say the word dates to the 3rd century BC.
• Rajan's claim that the Kodumanal, Porunthal and Palani inscriptions are Tamil-Brahmi has been disputed (see the Falk reference you removed). Adding more newspaper articles does not improve the situation.
• The Keezhadi fragments are claimed for the 6th century BC, but the excavation report says the inscriptions are personal names.

So apart from the controversy, none of these would meet the criterion given at the top of the article: "texts recording a complete sentence in the language". Kanguole 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

biased semitic anti chronology ?

there is in top, quote: "Writing first appeared in the Near East at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC"

but in Europe 6th millennium BC; see: Old European script — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

From the article linked: "The vast majority of historians agree that those symbols are not a writing system, but private symbols or ornaments of some kind." –Pinnerup (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit not in the Table

"An extreme case is the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rigveda: the earliest parts of this text may date to c. 1500 BC,[1] while the oldest known manuscripts date to c. 1040 AD.[2]" is in the article but not in the table. I'd rather not mess up formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:d081:3080:a4b3:b189:e7b4:c4bd (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit is not in the table, because Sanskrit is already in the table, just like there aren't separate entries for Mycenaean and Classical Greek. They're considered stages of the same language. Pinnerup (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ge'ez was first written before the birth of christ

From everything I've seen Ge'ez was first attested in the 9th BC, even if it is not as early as that we have inscriptions in Ge'ez since the start of the Aksumite Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfAxum (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the cited source, the earliest inscriptions in Ge'ez relate to Ezana (mid-4th century AD). Inscriptions from the 6th century BC in that area are included in Old South Arabian. Kanguole 12:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you confused the script with the languages, Ge'ez was written in a form of the Old(Ancient) South Arabian until the Ge'ez script was created(evolved from the ASA script) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfAxum (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the cited source says some of the 4th-century AD Ge'ez inscriptions were written in the Old South Arabian script, but the 6th-century BC texts are Old South Arabian. Kanguole 11:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the so-called Ethio-Sabaean inscriptions from the 8th/7th century BCE from Dʿmt/Yeḥa are written in Sabaean (Ancient South Arabian), although in a peculiar way that seems to hint that the writers may have natively spoken an Ethio-Semitic language, cf. "The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook" (2011) by Weninger et al., p. 1115. —Pinnerup (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian: first written in 1055

The Establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany contains words and expressions in Hungarian embedded in the Latin text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.135.90.92 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but have you read the first sentence, the one about "existing texts recording a complete sentence"? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic/Old Bulgarian

Although a Google book search turns up many instances of "Old Bulgarian" and some of "Old Macedonian", it is clear that the usual name for this language in the literature is "Old Church Slavonic".

A further issue is that although recording of the language began with the invention of the script in the 860s, the oldest surviving documents are from the late 10th or early 11th century. Kanguole 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

The imformation on Irish is totally incorrect. The first written Irish was is 597 called the Lament of Colmcille and was not the primitive ogham scripts alluded to in your list. 91.142.101.22 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Older Scots

The document, Lease of Land between the Abbot of Scone and Edmund de Haye of Leys and his son, 1312 ('The Scone Glosses'), MS Edinburgh, National Archives of Scotland, RH6/72, is taken as one of the earliest records of Scots. This is stated in Smith, Jeremy, J, 2012, Older Scots: A linguistic reader (The Scottish Text Society, Edinburgh)

An earlier example, a verse believed to have been written shortly after 1286, and before the succession in 1290, Qwhen Alexander Our Kynge was Dede, however it is known from Andrew of Wynton's Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, 1420. A recent imprint of this can be found in Watson, Roderick (2007). Literature of Scotland: The Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, Hants.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Blinharry (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Tamil should be the oldest language, NOT SANSKRIT!!!!!!1 2.24.190.221 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Actually Tamil is earlier than Sanskrit in the list, but if you want to add something, you'll need to identify the attestation, with reliable sources. Kanguole 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tamil and Sanskrit

I have again reverted a change moving Tamil earlier and Sanskrit later. The notes next to the Tamil entry already mention that Keeladi potsherds contain only personal names (as stated on page 14 of the Keeladi report). They thus do not meet the criteria for this list, as given in the first sentence of the article. In addition, the Sanskrit entry was moved, deleting the attached source. Kanguole 09:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

tamil language dates back to 490bc 2405:201:E006:213C:887E:BE01:B325:B4FB (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect earliest Evidence -Date on Sanskrit Inscription

In the Wikipedia page on List of languages by first written accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts) , The first inscription evidence for Sanskrit language is mentioned as 1st century BC, based on Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana. However in another page in Wikipedia on Spitzer Manuscript, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_Manuscript ), it mentioned as first Sanskrit written slokas was found and the calibrated age by Carbon-14 technique is 130 CE (80–230 CE). Can you check and update with correct info on the page - List of languages by first written accounts !

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3D70:3B60:8CB1:60A:619E:C24C (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does this need a correction? The Spitzer Manuscript is later than the two inscriptions identified in the entry. Kanguole 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Greek

We must insert the first attestation of ancient Greek: it is the Nestor's Cup, dated VIII century, found in Pitecusa--212.239.122.232 (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably, this was omitted because Mycenaean Greek is already present in the "Before 1000 BC" category because of Linear B. I'm writing nearly 4 years later, though, so maybe that's a new development. DubleH (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)