Talk:Northwest Semitic languages

Arabic

If Arabic is not technically a member of the language group....why is it listed in the bottom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.137.171 (talk • contribs)

It's listed under Northwest Semitic abjad because the Arabic adjad is developed, at least in part, from it. So, it is about the scripts rather than the language. — Gareth Hughes 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Babylon (Iraq)

Why is only Syria mentioned as a place where these languages (ie. Aramaic) were spoken? Some of the most representative examples of Aramaic are from Babylon (Iraq), such as the Babylonian Talmud, the writings of the Mandaeans, and those written in the Syriac script in Iraq - yet Babylon (Iraq) is not mentioned.Jimhoward72 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The key term here is "originally". The original spread of these languages was not so far east as Iraq--they only spread there after Aramaic became the official language of the Neo-Babylonian empire. (Taivo (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

I think that some readers of this article are going to ask the same question I did - so the article should put the "originally" in some kind of historical context - for example, what time period is "originally" referring to? Or perhaps mention could be made that originally they were in one place, but migrated to other places, or something similar.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What is ambiguous about the word "originally"? It always refers to the "homeland" of the group before any historical spreads. The Indo-European languages were originally in Ukraine, the Uralic languages were originally in western Siberia, etc. (Taivo (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

"They were originally spoken throughout the area that is covered by modern-day Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Sinai." This sentence, as it stands by itself in the article, with no further explanation, is unclear and ambiguous. It provides neither an idea of what time period "originally" refers to, or why this wide-ranging geographic region (spread out among various modern countries) was somehow linguistically unique. In this respect, the articles Indo-European_languages and Aramaic language are written with historical clarity, in contrast to this article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, it's not ambiguous at all. So if you have a better wording, then propose it and we can see how it might (or might not) be better. (Taivo (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

"Originally" avoids specifying any kind of time period, and is classified as improper style: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Relative_time_references Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If "Originally" means the "Early Roman Empire", as the article now says, that is the time period beginning with 27 BC (beginning of Roman Empire). At that time, Aramaic had long since spread to the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which was the area of Iraq. Therefore, Iraq should be on the list of where it was "originally" (up to 27 BC) spoken.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arameans began to settle in Mesopotamia and south eastern Anatolia from the 13th Century BC. They eventually intermingled with the indigenous Akkadian Semites of Assyria and Babylonia. Aramaic became the main spoken language of Assyria and Babylonia from the 8th Century BC, gradually replacing Akkadian." (from Aram (biblical region))

Please suggest a better wording. By "Early Roman Empire" I meant prior to the Jewish Diaspora. I didn't mean to exclude the Aramaic spread and wasn't even thinking about Aramaic when I used that wording. We need to indicate a time period when the Northwest Semitic languages were confined to their homeland--the Levant. --Taivo (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read the revision to the article and that's exactly the intention I was trying to convey. --Taivo (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "Jewish diaspora", are you referring to the period when the Jews were first exiled to Babylon? At that time, wasn't Babylon already speaking Aramaic? I actually am not that familiar with the factors involved with the spread of this language group, that's why I'm asking. How did the Jewish diaspora tie into their spread, what effect did it have?Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The Jewish diaspora refers to the Roman expulsion of the Jews from Palestine after 90 A.D. When I talked about that being a factor, I had forgotten about the prior spread of Aramaic through the Babylonian and Persian empires. --Taivo (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Semitic and Arabic

Gilisa, I don't know who you are or what your qualifications are, but you need to read the Ethnologue and Linguist List family trees more carefully. You claimed that Ethnologue showed Hebrew as "Southern Semitic". You are wrong in that. It is part of the southern branch of Central Semitic. You were reading "Southern" without reading the next higher node in the tree, which is "Central". In the Ethnologue classification, both the Canaanite languages and the Arabic languages are sisters in the Southern branch of Central Semitic. Neither Arabic nor Northwest Semitic are in South Semitic (which usually includes the Ethiopic and South Arabian language groups). In Ethnologue, the Northern branch of Central Semitic includes the Aramaic languages. Linguist List's composite tree includes a Northwest Semitic node where Aramaic and Canaanite are sisters, and Arabic is Northwest Semitic's sister in Central Semitic. While some linguists move things around a bit, the majority of linguists place Arabic along with Northwest Semitic in Central Semitic. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Modern hebrew

The modern hebrew word for mountain is הר (har), not צור (tsur). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.171.217 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

צור (tsur) is still present in Modern Hebrew, and the point of the table is to show the development of pronunciation, not definition. Changing it to "har" has no use at all - should be changed back the way it was.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

About my revised edit

No matter what your political views are, there is currently no country called Palestine, so in "modern-day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon" the word Palestine should be replaced by "Palestinian territories", which is the internationally accepted name for the entity. It might not seem like a huge deal, but it's part of a trend of politicization of articles. Now that I said it, I'll re-revise. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will change it again back to what it's been for a while. Please read WP:BRD. You revised, I reverted, now you have to get agreement before editing it again. That's the Wikipedia process. Throughout Wikipedia, you will find that Palestine is the accepted usage as at List of sovereign states. You must build a consensus otherwise. Wikipedia practice is "Palestine". --Taivo (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And if Wikipedians decide the earth is flat will it make it flat? Palestine isn't internationally recognized as a state, and doesn't fall into the definition of a state as it doesn't have sovereignty. The term Palestinian authority is the internationally accepted term and is as npov as it gets. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are differing views on the status of Palestine, obviously, so your definition of "NPOV" isn't necessarily someone else's definition of NPOV. The general practice for non-UN-member states that have limited recognition is to italicize them and make a note that their recognition is limited. That's what I've done here. The requirements of NPOV are satisfied because 1) the italics makes "Palestine" look different than "Israel" and "Jordan", 2) the presence of "Palestine" next to "Israel" and "Jordan" recognizes that something exists in the space between them, and 3) the note describes the exact relationship. It is a compromise solution that has been worked out on many different pages and in many different contexts from "Palestine" to "Somaliland" to "South Ossetia" and works well. And, actually, your statement that Palestine isn't recognized internationally is false--there are several dozen states that recognize it even without a final peace treaty with Israel. --Taivo (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of these states who recognize Palestine as a state also recognize the fact that Jews are children of pigs and apes, yet you won't state that as a fact (I hope). But even if the whole world recognized it, it wouldn't make it any more than an idea, rather then reality. Your solution is just making the article more complex, political and misguiding. Palestine is a term that describes an area covering both Israel and the Palestinian authority (and at times part of modern day Jordan), so saying "Israel and Palestine" is pretty much like saying Spain and the Iberian peninsula. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Complain all you want, but this solution is the consensus agreement over many pages. Your very statement denigrating the countries that recognize Palestine shows that you are not NPOV in the matter. --Taivo (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not npov and never claimed I am. If it was up to me it would be called "occupied Jewish land". However the term I suggested is npov and used by most Arabs as well, unlike the term Palestine which is used to described the entire area, as I stated before. TFighterPilot (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

TFighterPilot, You continue to ignore Wikipedia consensus to push your personal POV. Read List of sovereign states and you will see how Palestine is treated here. Just as we don't write "Republic of France" every time, we don't write "Palestinian Authority", but "Palestine". As I have told you before, this issue of how to refer to the non-UN-member states is a matter of discussion and consensus on many pages throughout Wikipedia. The consensus is to list these states in italics with a note. That is the NPOV consensus. --Taivo (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the same case as France, as the France and its borders are well defined, while the word Palestine usually refers to the territory covering both Israel and the PA. Notice that the title of most countries' articles is simply their name, while the state of Palestine article is called "State of Palestine" and is different than the article called Palestine. Again, it's not about recognition, it's about definition. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Ireland, Macedonia is a disambiguation page and Ireland is about the island. But in these lists of states we don't say "Republic of Ireland" or "Republic of Macedonia", but "Ireland" and "Macedonia". Same thing. In lists of state names, "Palestine" is sufficient to uniquely identify the Palestinian Territory and not the region, just as "Ireland" is sufficient to identify the republic and not the island and "Macedonia" is sufficient to identify the republic and not the region. That is the Wikipedia consensus. Look again at List of sovereign states to see the usage employed in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You put too much importance on that one article. Look at the Levant for example. "The Levant includes modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories". That's how it's usually called in Wikipedia. Also, a quick Google search for the word Palestine will mostly bring you results about the entire land. Both Ireland and Macedonia are usually used to describe the countries (weather the Greeks like it or not), Palestine, however, is not, and a single WP article can't change it. TFighterPilot (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I cite that one article only as a convenient example. The issue of how to deal with the non-UN member states has been discussed in many different places and the same consensus is always reached--the most NPOV presentation is the simple name of the state in italics with a note that it has limited recognition. That is exactly the procedure here--Palestine in italics with a note on its recognition status, in this case a wikilink to List of sovereign states. Just because other articles have not been subjected to the Wikipedia consensus doesn't mean that this article should not be. The general consensus is "Palestine" in italics with a note on recognition. And you are wrong about "Palestine" being different than "Ireland" and "Macedonia". Look at any newspaper and search "Palestine". 90% of the references will not be to the region, but to the nascent state. Have you actually examined each of those Google references to see whether they referred to the state or the region of Palestine? I didn't think so. You're just guessing because out of the several thousand results you get searching for "Palestine" you have not examined all of them to actually determine whether each site deals with the region or the state. Just as both "Macedonia" and "Ireland" have broader meanings that are very common, so, too, does "Palestine". But just as with both "Ireland" and "Macedonia", when "Palestine" occurs in a list of the names of states, the "state" meaning prevails. That is the Wikipedia consensus established over a broad range of articles. --Taivo (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see shall we? First result, the Wikipedia article about the land. Second result, "Palestine Facts". Again, about the whole land. Third, "palestine History", again. Fourth, "travel palestine". First one so far that refers to the PA. Fifth, "Palestine Remembered", refers again to the whole land. Saying that Palestine is only the West Bank and Gaza equals to saying that the Palestinian people were created in 1949. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So you only have 20,000 other Google references to go through, counting the exact reference of each usage. But that's actually irrelevant. You still fail to understand despite repeated attempts on my part. Compare Republic of Ireland and Ireland or Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia. In both cases, the titles of the articles that refer to the region are the short versions, just as with Palestine. The article titles that deal specifically with the states are the longer versions, just as with State of Palestine (not "Palestinian Authority" as you insist on). But when used in lists of states, as in the templates with languages, we do not write "Republic of Ireland", "Republic of Macedonia", or "State of Palestine"--we write the shorter forms, "Ireland", "Macedonia", and "Palestine" since the context determines that these terms do not refer to the wider regions, but to the states themselves. It is a very simple concept and one that you will find throughout Wikipedia in lists of states. --Taivo (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Syro-Palestinian' is superfluous, irrelevant, political and misleading

I don't understand why the term 'Syro-Palestinian' is needed here. It's considerably misleading as the language of most Syrians and Palestinians today is Arabic which isn't classified as Northwest Semitic. It's useless as a geographical designation as it leaves out much of the territory where Northwest Semitic languages were spoken (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon) While alluding to territories where these languages were not spoken (Assyria and Philistia). It's only helpful if you consider Israel as Palestine and lebanon as part of syria and as such it's extremely political. I doubt the term is even commonly used today (Google yielded no relevant results).

I'd leave it out as Northwest Semitic is absolutely sufficient. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.62.173 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It actually was accepted scholarly terminology in the first half of the 20th century, but could be misunderstood today... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is referenced in the article and should be discussed here and a consensus reached before removing. Editor2020 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Harmonising the era

@Dorkmax and Scootertop: Both of you have 'harmonised the era', Dorkmax (here) to 'Common Era' notation, a few years ago, and Scootertop (here) to 'Christian era', recently. In between an IP (here) added a few BC, probably not noting or being experienced enough to recognise the consequences of having BCE''s practically at the same place. Now, what we choose is not very important; but I side with Dorkmax here, agreeing with the academic style argument. (Dorkmax' edit also has 'precedence'; but there was also a very old and short version with just two 'BC' and no 'BCE', which could be used for arguing 'precedence' in the other direction.)

Scootertop, I therefore shall revert your four changes of 'BCE' to 'BC', and instead shall change the three 'BC' (introduced by the IP) to 'BCE'. (The category with 'BC' in its name of course will not be changed.) Thus, Dormax' harmonisation will be restored. However, this is not very important; and if you disagree, Scootertop (or someone else), then you may revert back. In any case, I won't change this further (as long as it is consistent). JoergenB (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My motivation is that WP:MOS directs that the earliest and most established era setting should be retained or maintained in an article. In fact the BCE style was not present at all for any length of time in this article right up to February 2021, when an editor introduced text using this convention whilst also removing some of the text contaning the BC convention. Then in July Dorkmax changed all the remaing BC usage. Instead the longstanding convention should have been retained. As you noted another editor partiallly reintroduced the BC style afterwards. There was no justification for changing the original setting in the first place so I am going to reinstate the setting without prejudice, in accordance with my previous edit.--Scootertop (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if any of this is bad form, and I apologize that I hadn't yet seen this. If we are expected to explain ourselves, then I am happy to do the same, even if the time has past, for the sake of posterity.

"the earliest and most established era setting should be retained or maintained in an article" it should be considered fairly well established at this point that incremental changes with the times are not just expected at Wikipedia in order to stay relevant, though Wikipedia is clearly not in the same state since its founding. Similar changes in the entirety of the academic world are the order of the day, and in fact considered ideal as the praxis of research and publishing changes to be less normative, less eurocentric, less Western-centric etc. with time.

"In fact the BCE style was not present at all for any length of time in this article right up to February 2021, when an editor introduced text using this convention whilst also removing some of the text contaning the BC convention" You are describing the process of any change in formatting done here, regardless of what year it occurs. What is being said is simply that it "feels new" as quite literally any change would at its onset.

"Then in July Dorkmax changed all the remaing BC usage" when considering uniformity, I sided with what is considered more professional and correct in modern academia. Lots of things from past academic practice have been tossed by the wayside. Lots more will be similarly tossed before you and I finish hashing out BC vs BCE.

"Instead the longstanding convention should have been retained. As you noted another editor partiallly reintroduced the BC style afterwards. There was no justification for changing the original setting in the first place so I am going to reinstate the setting without prejudice, in accordance with my previous edit."

That it is the way it was done before is not cause enough to retain an aging tradition, nor is it a given that the the convention be retained when changes have been made - and met with enough acceptance to suggest detractors will forget and get over it. But my primary motivation outside of the benefits of BCE over BC is inevitability. This gradual change is happening in the world of academia regardless of aversion to change. Wikipedia can change at an earlier date, when some don't feel comfortable with it for their own reasons of familiarity, or Wikipedia can change it at a later date - at a time when it is considered overdue, archaic, and slightly embarrassing to a site that claims to be Wiki- fast.

Dorkmax (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)