Talk:Ainu language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CryptidZilla912.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 July 2020 and 16 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tangwuyou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meh259. Peer reviewers: Paigejaru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jigokuyari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Languages"?[edit]

Shibatani (1990) speaks of "Ainu languages".

In the source cited, the Languages of Japan, Shibatani makes no mention of anything other than dialects of Ainu.

Hattori and various contributors, whom Shibatani cites in talking about dialects, only speak of dialects in Ainugo Hōgen Jiten ("Ainu Dialect Dictionary"). Vovin, in Proto-Ainu also speaks only of dialects.

As a linguistics student interested in the language, nothing I have ever read nor anyone I have ever spoken with have even mentioned "Ainu languages".

This is a very serious error, and I would say, calls into question the need for this page. --Limetom 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Murasaki's work [with] the last fluent speaker of Sakhalin Ainu [...] stands out as a great addition to the corpus of data on Ainu languages. (Shibatani 1990:9) Notable that in one of the very few passages to deal with good data on something other than Hokkaidō, he uses the plural.
Remember too, Shibatani speaks primarily of "Japanese dialects", where we have an article on Japonic languages; Japanese scholars worked almost exclusively with just one of the Ainu languages, Hokkaidō; and back when the other varieties of Ainu were still vibrant, Japanese and Westerners alike considered both Japanese and Chinese to be single languages, and Japanese was considered a language isolate. (I've seen plenty of English encyclopedias which speak of Japanese that way.) Ainu is a lot like Japanese in this regard, but without the present-day diversity to force reevaluation. Nonetheless, historical records speak of a great deal of diversity in 19th century Ainu, and that some of these were mutually unintelligible, though we can't know if this reached the level of Japonic. kwami (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting, quoting the ICRAP Ainu wax-cylinder preservation project: "The linguistic analysis of the information taken from the (...) cylinders will not only contribute to the progress of the study of the Sakhalin Ainu language as well as of the comparative study of the Sakhalin and the Hokkaidō Ainu languages but also [...]" (Bronisław (1998) The Collected Works of Bronisław Piłsudski: The aborigines of Sakhalin, p 2) That is, Sakhalin and Hokkaidō are considered separate languages, not dialects of a single language.
There are other mentions of "Ainu languages", but usually by people without direct knowledge, such as Cavalli-Sforza, or translated from Japanese, which doesn't have plurals. And true, Vovin does speak of dialects, not languages, and evidently they are not terribly divergent. But then, the same can be said of Japanese and Chinese. kwami (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am more tempted to believe that this is simply a typo on Shibatani's part. As you pointed out, Japanese does not have plurals, and confusing the singular and the plural is a very common mistake among Japanese second-language speakers of English. Nowhere else in the book does he mention multiple Ainu languages or an "Ainu language family", indeed, he talks about "...the Kurile [dialect] group, the Sakhalin [dialect] group, and the Hokkaidō [dialect] group." (Shibatani 1990: 7) --Limetom 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could be a typo, or an editing error. However, a "Sakhalin dialect group" does not entail that Sakhalin and Hokkaido are therefore in turn dialects of a still larger group. Also, Shibatani's definition of a "language" is based on ethnicity rather than straight linguistics. kwami (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what, then, is a straight linguistic definition of a "language" as opposed to a "dialect"? I don't think you'll get people to agree on an exact border there.
Shibatani, I think, intends that these three (Kuril, Sakhalin, and Hokkaido) are dialect groups of one, single, overarching language: Ainu. I still think that that one mention of "Ainu languages" is simply a typo.
Further, I don't think you'll find much support from anyone, aside from the handful of sources that you point out, all of which are dated, that support any kind of idea that there is a family of languages, rather than a grouping of dialects. --Limetom 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said by mutual intelligibility.
Shibatani has Japanese as a single language, but we treat it as a Japonic language family. IMO Ainu is similar.
We can't just assume a typo when we have no real reason to believe that's the case. "Could be" doesn't mean "is".
There aren't many sources on this period, dated or otherwise, as all other Ainu lects are extinct. kwami (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some individuals interchange "dialects" with "languages" fairly often, even if they know it's semantically incorrect. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, my problem here is that really the only good source for this is from Piłsudski. I can find no sources in Japanese, no sources in Russian, and basically only Piłsudski in English who ever mention Ainu as a family of languages. It seems the scholarly consensus is that Ainu is a language isolate, with three dialect groups: Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and Kuril. This is the view on both the Russian and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as in Ethnologue and various other composite sources.

And in terms of mutual intelligibility, at least based off of Vovin's work (1993), all I have easy access to at the moment, most dialects seem to be fairly intelligible with one another, both in terms of lexicon and grammar. --Limetom 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Japanese sources is that many of them treat Japanese as a language isolate, or at most split off Luchuan. As for Ethnologue, things could well be different if those lects were extant--Ethnologue cares little about extinct languages. I agree though that it's a rather unclear situation. kwami (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous mentions of "Ainu languages" that come up on Google books, such as Materials for the Study of the Ainu Languages and Folklore, Rozwadowski ed. 1912, and European Studies on Ainu Languages and Culture, Josef Kreiner 1993. But the most explicit one I have access to is Patrick Heinrich (2008) "Casting Light on the Past: Lessons on the Origin and Formation of Japanese-Ryūkyūan", in Theories and methods in Japanese studies. He explicitly discusses "Ainu languages" and an "Ainu language family":
It needs to be determined how far southward the Ainu languages ever extended on the Japanese archipelago.
The myth that the Ainu languages are part of the Indo-European language family ... [failure to establish any external connections] As a result, Ainu continues to be regarded as an isolated language family.
these [indigenous] languages are Sakhalin Ainu, Kurile Ainu, Hokkaidō Ainu, ... Japanese-Ryūkyūan is generally regarded as an isolated language family, as is the Ainu language family.
kwami (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heinrich is a Ryukyuanist and his work is on Japonic--specifically the Ryukyuan subgroup, not Ainu. While he did say "the Ainu language family," I see no real reason to take him as an authority in this area. Piłsudski's Materials for the Study of the Ainu Language and Folklore (emphasis mine) never mentions, at least anywhere I can find, "Ainu languages;" he consistently refers to Ainu in Sakhalin, the Kurils, and Hokkaido as a single group. Kreiner's work is called European Studies on Ainu Language and Culture.
I'm really just not seeing a scholarly consensus that there are multiple Ainu languages. --Limetom 09:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checked one more source really quickly, Izutsu's I/Yay-Pakasnu; it too makes no mention of a family of Ainu languages, just dialects under the Ainu language. --Limetom 10:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singular dominates in the lit, but it seems to me that's because most of the lit deals exclusively with Hokkaido Ainu. "Dialects" then generally refers to the dialects of Hokkaido.

Pilsudski, Material for the Study of the Ainu Languages (plural) is also cited in Buchli, in Yotte (French), and in Rocznik Biblioteki Polskiej Akademii Nauk w Krakowie, vol 46. Are all of these errors? Mauss cites him with the plural in 1954 (The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies), and still uses the plural when citing him in 2010 (Soziologie und Anthropologie 2). In The East vol 19, speak of the value of his recordings for "comparative studies of the Sakhalin and the Hokkaido Ainu languages". Pilsudski was one of the few to document something other than Hokkaido.

Sidney Cheung, Japanese Anthropology and Depictions of the Ainu, "it prohibited the use of the Ainu languages and Ainu folk customs"

Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney (1968) A northwest coast Sakhalin Ainu world view: "Perhaps, then, the place names in Hokkaido reflect a time when the Sakhalin Ainu and the Hokkaido Ainu languages were not yet differentiated." Another rare case of s.t. other than Hokkaido.

Northwest anthropological research notes 2004:38-39, p 179, "Their work is very valuable and appreciated today because linguists studying the Ainu languages have been working hard to preserve and revitalize a variety of Ainu dialects"

— kwami (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say citations of Piłsudski's 1912 Materials for the study of the Ainu language and folklore (or the recent University of Michigan reprint) as Materials for the study of the Ainu languages in the plural is indeed an error. The de Gruyter collected works of Piłsudski are also only in the singular. Piłsudski himself never says--anywhere I can find, at least--that there is more than one Ainu language.
Also, the citation from page 2 of the first volume of Piłsudski's collected works is not Piłsudski himself, but a quote from Majewicz (1997) on the project to restore wax cylinder recordings of Ainu made by Piłsudski. --Limetom 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the above debate is 4 years old, but…

I think the argument comes down to this: kwami thinks Ainu is a family of languages, like Japanese; Limetom thinks Ainu is a single language, like Japanese. While kwami refers to Japonic, he's really arguing that Japanese itself, Japonic minus the Ryukyuans, is a family. For example: "The problem with Japanese sources is that many of them treat Japanese as a language isolate, or at most split off Luchuan."

Well, western sources often agree that Japanese is a single language, split off (within the Japonic family) from the Ryukyuan languages. Sure, some sources instead split off Hachijō as a separate language, or even subfamily, instead of treating it as a top-level or eastern dialect, and some people even split off Satsugū. But most treat it all as one language. And English Wikipedia agrees.

So, if Ainu is like Japanese (including Kagoshimaben and Hachijōjima, but not including the Ryukyuan languages), then it's a single language according to the way Wikipedia orders things.

Personally, I strongly disagree with Limetom that this is a "serious error", because I think the whole distinction between a language isolate (or single-language branch in a family) and a language family (or subfamily) is meaningless, and it gets even sillier when you start arguing about languages that clearly had multiple branches in the past but only have one surviving language. Whether, say, Ainu and Emishi are related, that's interesting; whether Ainu was 1 language or 3 a century ago (when it's clearly 1 now, and presumably a lot more than 3 more than a century ago) is hard to get excited about. But if you're going to argue about it, I think Limetom's argument wins. --50.0.128.185 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was arguing that Ryukyuan is not a dialect of Japanese. Glottolog examined the lit and concluded Ainu was a small family, now reduced to a single language. And there's also the question of Koreanic, which is arguable a single language but Jeju is now treated as a distinct language by Unesco. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge this article into Ainu language. Ainu languages is original research and not universal. Ainu language and Ainu languages articles have a lot of overlap.--ABCEdit (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this proposal and note previous discussion of the issue here. —  AjaxSmack  03:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is completed.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. No language family is universally accepted, not even Indo-European. By this standard, we need to delete our articles on Japonic, Koreanic, Altaic and Balto-Slavic as well, and Chinese should be a single article. Even if you consider Ainu varieties to be dialects of a single language, just as many people consider Okinawan to be a dialect of Japanese, or Hakka to be a dialect of Chinese, WP has lots of articles on individual dialects. But Glottolog reviewed the evidence and concluded that Ainu was a small language family. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged again. "Ainu languages" has not gained consensus. Looking at past discussion, only you claim to be an independent article. That is not consensus of enwiki.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kwamikagami. Article should not be merged. The claim that Ainu languages is WP:OR is wrong as there are sources like Glottolog. The article Ainu language (the hokkaido ainu) should be renamed as Hokkaido Ainu (like kuril ainu or sakhalin ainu are also named through geographic location).—AsadalEditor (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed in the past to rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language (Talk:Ainu language#Requested move 16 February 2018). But plural persons opposed it. As a result of the discussion, we agreed on redirecting Ainu languages to Ainu language. To make Ainu languages an independent article is against the agreement.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Ok than i will reinclude the moved content back. Maybe we should still think about the other option to rename it to Hokkaido Ainu and make it a subsection of the Ainu languages (like your original propose). --AsadalEditor (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ABCEdit: Should we also merge the aricle Sakhalin Ainu and Kuril Ainu? Because it makes not much sense to merge Ainu languages with Ainu language/Hokkaido but let the Sakhalin/Kuril Ainu as own article. What do you think? --AsadalEditor (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "merge proposal" was just what we have at the beginning of this thread. No discussion of sources, just one voice in support. You now have a couple voices in opposition. Since Glottolog was convinced to break up their Ainu language clade to a family, something that wasn't even mentioned in the merge proposal, there is certainly good reason to at least think before merging. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkaido Ainu language is redirected to Ainu language now, so I think it's reasonable for Kuril Ainu language and Sakhalin Ainu language to redirect to Ainu language.

But I think the two options below are ideal.

1

2

--ABCEdit (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, ABCEdit, we already have your 2nd "ideal" option, and you keep reverting it. The articles should retain their histories. We don't need to recreate the existing articles. We could have a discussion on naming. However, since there were dozens of Ainu dialects, it would be a bit disingenuous to label them simply "dialects" as in your option 1, especially when that contradicts sources. We could move the primary language article to "Hokkaido Ainu" and the others to "Kuril Ainu" and "Sakhalin Ainu", since we don't have separate ethnography articles. (That's a very common naming strategy for languages on WP.) 'Ainu language' could then be either a rd to Hokkaido or to the family. Though I don't see any particular problem with leaving the names as they are. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a renaming of Ainu language to "Hokkaido Ainu". Currently we have Ainu languages and Ainu language. That is somewhat confusing.--AsadalEditor (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't oppose to rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language. But in my past proposal, plural persons opposed it (Talk:Ainu language#Requested move 16 February 2018). If you want to rename Ainu language⇒Hokkaido Ainu language（that is, adopt option 2）, please propose it on Talk:Ainu language again. I won't oppose it.--ABCEdit (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be just "Hokkaido Ainu" to placate those who might debate whether it's a language or a dialect. But the only substantial question is whether we have an article for the family, which no-one here seems to oppose. What we call the articles is secondary, and irrelevant to their content, and I don't particularly care what we chose. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To placate those who find having both Ainu languages and Ainu language "confusing", we could rename Ainu languages to Ainuic languages to parallel Japonic languages, Koreanic languages, Mongolic languages, etc. It doesn't really roll of the tongue as easily, but it does appear to have some currency in the literature. This is just a suggestion though -- the current naming scheme seems perfectly acceptable to me as is (although Ainuic & Ainuic languages should probably be redirects at the very least).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that could work. Though it does seem to be a little odd to call a family X-ic when all its members are simply called X. Like renaming Bantu "Bantuic". Though I suppose it's no different than Chinese vs Sinitic. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment[edit]

discussing whether Ainu is a language isolate or a language family, the article name should be Ainu language, Ainu languages or Ainic languages, and Ainu language should be renamed Hokkaido Ainu language.--ABCEdit (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I think ABCEdit meant Ainuic. That's the spelling found by William T. in the previous thread. Another option for the Hokkaido language is simply "Hokkaido Ainu". — kwami (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • False dichotomy. Instead, merge to Ainu languages, don't call them "dialects", but don't fork out stub articles. The above thread lays out "two possibilities", which this RfC is meant to examine: 1) a number of tiny articles branching out from a language family article, or 2) one article treating it as a single language with dialects. Sources no longer seem to support the latter view (at least not entirely), yet this does not force us to create a bunch of miserable stubs. The obvious, third, compromise option is to just merge it all into a language-family article with sections, and redirects to those sections, unless/until the complexity and volume of content reaches the levels addressed at WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT as calling for spin-out articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough for at least the family and the Hokkaido articles. It's rare that we have an article on a family without any articles for its languages, though Keres language comes to mind, which is presented as a language article but reads as a family article. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the coexistence of Ainu languages and Ainu language. That is very confusing. If you wish Ainu languages to exist, we have to rename Ainu language to "Hokkaido Ainu language".--ABCEdit (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above, first, I will rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language (submit to Wikipedia: Requested moves) in one week. Let me know if you have other opinions.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wording the two articles differently for clarity is probably a good idea, though I don't particularly care if it's Ainu and Hokkaido Ainu or Ainuic & Ainu. Or Ainu & Ainu, really - I don't know how confusing that could be, given how many pairs of 'X language' vs 'X languages' articles we have on WP, none of which seem to have proven to be confusing. The choice you propose is probably best, given the parallel with Sakhalin Ainu and Kuril Ainu. We should have a dab at the top, "Ainu language" redirects here. For the Ainu family, see "Ainu languages". We could even move the family to 'Ainuic languages' in addition to moving the Hokkaido article, for extra clarity. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives a paltry 5,510 hits for "Hokkaido Ainu language". (And that's almost twenty times as many as for "Hokkaido Ainu dialects", which in turn is many more than for "Hokkaido Ainu dialect".) Not that titling an article with a little-used name is necessarily a bad thing. However they may be retitled, the article that's currently titled "Ainu languages" is now far more informative about Ainu as spoken in Hokkaidō than is the article currently titled "Hokkaido Ainu language". -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone bothered to consult the literature on this subject? "The Google" isn't always the best source of information. For example: Language Isolates Edited By Lyle Campbell, Publisher Routledge 3 October 2017 The opening paragraph on Ainu states:
"Ainu is a dormant language isolate previously spoken on the northernmost Japanese island of Hokkaido, as well as southern half of the Russian island of Sakhalin, and in the disputed Kuril Islands. There have been a large number of proposed relationships between Ainu and other language families. While most of the claims with regards to a genetic relationship are questionable, language contact between Ainu and Japanese on the one hand and Ainu and Nivkh on the other are well-substantiated, albeit understudied. There are several grammars of Ainu. The early Japanese-language grammars are short but are still valuable due to the fact that the authors were in consultation with native speakers. There are a number of collections of Ainu materials. Two of the most notable collections are Kindaichi and Kannari and Izutsu. Ainu is primarily divided into three groups: varieties found on Hokkaido, varieties found in the Kuril Islands, and varieties found on Sakhalin Island."
If you have an edu email, you can likely access the entire book in PDF form for free. Seeing as this is recent and Campbell is still the most published and respected authority on endangered and dormant languages, I'd say his opinion should be given weight. He's not a strict language conservative as some very young Linguists may suggest. He is an evidence-based Linguist and when he takes a cautious stance, it is not without reason, in my opinion. In all fairness, I should state that he taught at my university for a time and he IS the author of THE text on Historical Linguistics, which is updated regularly. LiPollis (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Campbell doesn't know Ainu, whereas several of the other authors do. There is often going to be some disagreement as to whether varieties should best be considered dialects or languages, and often people won't address the issue at all. It wasn't so long ago that Japanese was a language isolate, after all, and Greek is still often presented as the only language of its branch of IE. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a collected volume. Campbell is the editor for the whole volume, not that chapter.
It really does feel like there's one group here insistent on pushing, for whatever reason, that there is an Ainu language family. None of the people on the Ainu-as-a-family side, that I've seen, reference the Japanese literature. In the Japanese language literature, I haven't ever seen 「アイヌ語族」'Ainu language family', only 「アイヌ語」 'Ainu language'. A lot of the English language literature is quite a bit more distant/secondary, and far smaller, than the Japanese literature on Ainu. So it sometimes feels to me like there is a pre-set conclusion that people are just trying to arrive at. Overall, it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not Ainu is a language family or a single language. But there are lots of little issues here and there. For, instance, the "Ainuic" term seems to be borderline WP:OR; it really doesn't show up even in the English language literature. And it also seems that we're splitting some near-stubs into stubs by breaking the articles up into the different dialects at this point. So ultimately I'm glad we're at least trying to discuss this, but just worry about it becoming intractable. --Limetom 03:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan, the view is dominant that Ainu is a single language and the subordinate varieties (Hokkaido, Kuril, Sakhalin) are dialects. We Japanese don't say "アイヌ語族" at all. However, for the subordinate varieties, we call "北海道アイヌ語"(Hokkaido Ainu language), "千島アイヌ語"(Kuril Ainu language) and "樺太アイヌ語"(Sakhalin Ainu language) more often than "北海道方言"(Hokkaido dialect(s)), "千島方言"(Kuril dialect(s)) and "樺太方言"(Sakhalin dialect(s)). I think this is because 1. "北海道アイヌ語" means "Ainu language in Hokkaido" rather than "Hokkaido-Ainu language", 2. we prevent confusion with Hokkaido dialect(s) of Japanese language, and 3. the meaning of "語" in Japanese includes not only a single language but also a plurality of languages and "アイヌ語" also means Ainu languages.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Russia, Ainu is also considered a single language with different dialects. Russian Wikipedia has a single article covering it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Айнский_язык . --46.242.12.2 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a bit late, but first I don't want to leave the statement by Limetom uncommented: "the "Ainuic" term seems to be borderline WP:OR; it really doesn't show up even in the English language literature". Well, it is clearly not the majority term, but it is consistently used by Juha Janhunen and a small number of colleagues who have adapted his coinage.

Apart from this, I think the current solution ("Ainu language" and "Hokkaido Ainu language" redirected to this article) is more than awkward. What about restoring Hokkaido Ainu language as a full article, and turning "Ainu language" into a full dab page? Like this:

Ainu language may refer to

And, before another arrogant "Has anyone bothered to consult the literature on this subject"-style question pops up: yes I have, too (like all other editors who have contributed to this discussion). –Austronesier (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: what do you think about the dab? –Austronesier (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add information on Russian studies[edit]

The Russian version of the article contains the following snippets regarding the study of the Ainu language by Russians (my translation):

The first records of the Ainu language on record were made by Russian travellers (in Cyrillic), the systematic publication of these [records] began in the second half of the 18th century in Saint Petersburg, at The Imperial Academy of Sciences.[1][2]

Early studies of the Ainu language (then called "Kuril") by Russian linguists were performed in 18th century. S.P. Krasheninnikov has assembled a list of words used by natives of Kamchatka (inhabiting Lopatka) and Kurils, which was then published by The Imperial Academy of Sciences under the editorship of P.S. Pallas. In the 19th century the language was studied by Russian physician M.M. Dobrotvorskiy, who created the first Ainu–Russian dictionary (1875),[3] and English missionary J. Batchelor, and at the beginning of the 20th century by famous Russian orientalist N.A. Nevskiy, as well as Bronisław Piłsudski.

I don't know if it's true that the Russians were the first on record to make the records of the Ainu language. Did the Japanese make any before the end of the 18th century? In any case, the "Comparative dictionaries…" and "Ainu–Russian dictionary" are important enough to warrant a mention in the article. (Ainu words are listed in "Comparative dictionaries…" under the "162—Курильски" key, meaning "in Kuril". Also, according to the preface, the Kamchatka Lopatka dialect of the "Kuril" language is included as well, however, it is not explained in what way, exactly, it is included.) --46.242.12.2 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Паллас, П. С.; Екатерина II (1787). Сравнительные словари всҍхъ языковъ и нарҍчій, собранные десницею Всевысочайшей особы. Отдҍленіе перьвое, содержащее въ себҍ европейскіе и азіатскіе языки. Часть перьвая [Comparative dictionaries of all languages and dialects, collected by the right hand of the All-Highest personage. First section, containing in itself European and Asian languages. First part] (in Russian). Санктпетербургъ.
  2. ^ Паллас, П. С.; Екатерина II (1789). Сравнительные словари всҍхъ языковъ и нарҍчій, собранные десницею Всевысочайшей особы. Отдҍленіе перьвое, содержащее въ себҍ европейскіе и азіатскіе языки. Часть вторая [Comparative dictionaries of all languages and dialects, collected by the right hand of the All-Highest personage. First section, containing in itself European and Asian languages. Second part] (in Russian). Санктпетербургъ.
  3. ^ Добротворскій, М. М. (1875). Аинско-русскій словарь [Ainu–Russian dictionary] (in Russian and Ainu). Казань: Императорскій Казанскій Университетъ (ru).

Requested move 18 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. A few things are clear: this is article is presently about the wider spectrum of the Ainu language(s), not simply the Hokkaido dialect/language. Additionally, the evidence presented suggests that this subject is usually treated as one "Ainu language" with dialects, rather than a family comprising distinct languages. Given these facts, I see no reason not to follow the consensus here to move the article to the singular form. Another RM will have to determine the names of the sub-articles. Cúchullain t/c 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ainu languages → Ainu language – per WP:COMMONNAME; see this ngram for a comparison of usage. Following a recent merge discussion, Ainu language and Ainu languages were merged, in this case the former into the latter. However, the singular form is far more common in sources. If the move is agreed to, an admin should histmerge the old Ainu language history as it is much longer and more substantive. —  AjaxSmack  03:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move, per WP:COMMONNAME. Plus, the Ainu "languages" are really just dialects of the Ainu language. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support only if the following conditions are fulfilled.
If the two conditions above are not fulfilled, I oppose this proposal.
The ideal state of the articles based on the phylogeny is below;
--ABCEdit (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
correction --ABCEdit (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added ----ABCEdit (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support ABCEdit's conditions. I prefer merging everything into a single "Ainu language" article, with separate sections named "Hokkaido dialect", "Sakhalin dialect", and "Kuril dialect" (allowing deep-linking, e.g. [[Ainu language#Sakhalin dialect]]). Other sections of the article should only contain the information pertaining to the language as a whole. The article's introduction should explain that the Hokkaido dialect is the best studied and the only one surviving to this day. IMO, it doesn't make sense having separate articles for the three dialects, as the Sakhalin dialect and Kuril dialect articles are tiny (and unlikely to grow due to these dialects having become extinct). So the resulting structure would be as follows: introduction, general sections (origin, history, etc.), big Hokkaido section with detailed language examples, two small Sakhalin and Kuril sections highlighting the differences from Hokkaido, references section, and "see more" section. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal per nom. Neutral on the other moves mentioned by ABCEdit, I suggest those be brought as separate RMs with their own accompanying evidence. But the ngram evidence presented by AjaxSmack shows fairly clearly that sources treat this particular topic in the singular.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Language families take the plural. That's standard naming here on WP. Of course Ngram is going to show the singular is more common -- not only do people write about the surviving language more often than the extinct ones, but even when writing about any of the extinct ones people will use the singular. Compare Ngram for Japanese -- to be consistent, we would need to move Japonic languages > Japanese language. If we move this to the singular, we're just going to recreate the family article. Oppose moving the other languages to 'dialect', as they're not dialects. Also, a history merge of two articles on different topics is a really bad idea. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How many first language speakers?[edit]

Endangeredlanguages.com's page on Ainu (citation 2 in the article) states that only two people anymore speak Ainu as their first language. However, a Disqus comment on the page says that there are more people who speak it but are shy to show it because of racism against ethnic Ainu in Japan. The article also says that UNESCO says that 15 people speak Ainu in their daily lives. Can there be any clarification on this? Thanks in advance. TreeNamedUser (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source, it cites the UNESCO world atlas, which cites a source from 1996. So that source can safely be discarded. 8ya (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language examples[edit]

I think the article would benefit from some samples of the language(s). Without some examples of basic vocabulary I have little idea what the language(s) would sound like. Eoghan (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent split[edit]

@Kwamikagami: thanks for your message on my talk page, but I'm sorry - your change to the article structure at Ainu language cannot be made without a fresh RM or split discussion. This was discussed in considerable detail last year - the first move request was closed with no action, but the closer noted that the term "Hokkaido Ainu language" has significant opposition. There was then the merge discussion, which didn't attract any direct opposition although there was actually a worry expressed that someone might eventually try to get around the previous RM by forking off a Hokkaido Ainu language article. Finally, at the 18 August 2019 RM further up on this talk page (which I supported and you opposed) the merge was again acknowledged, the closer specifically noted the consensus that "the evidence presented suggests that this subject is usually treated as one "Ainu language" with dialects, rather than a family comprising distinct languages" and the RM was close with a move. That was all more than a year ago, and the situation has been stable since then. There is simply no way you can claim some other consensus was formed, and any a change to any other situation requires further discussion. I'm therefore reverting your changes once more and I'd suggest that you please WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who reverted that decision! The result was not to merge, but to move the Hokkaido language to "Ainu language" and the family to something else. The closer moved it to "Anuic languages", but you reverted as that was "close to OR". So it's you who are edit-warring to disrupt a closure that you do not agree with. As I said, I'm happy to have the Hokkaido language at "Ainu language". You object to "Ainuic", so I'll restore the family at "Ainu languages". Please don't disrupt further. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. There was a merge discussion last year, which while not officially closed resulted in the decision to merge and there wasn't any direct opposition to it there. Then the move request above took place after the merge had taken place, and it reaffirmed it. The situation was settled and stable for more than a year, until you suddenly came steaming back in here this week, moving things around and undoing the merge that had taken place. You've now edited against that consensus three times. I'm not going to revert again, because contrary to what you say I am not an "edit warrior", but you need to self-revert back to the stable version and seek proper consensus. Pinging Cuchullain ABCEdit Dekimasu AjaxSmack MSGJ SMcCandlish who I think were all the editors involved in the previous RFCs, RMs and/or merge discussions on this topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru’s read on the situation is correct as far as I’m concerned. Both versions of Kwamikagami’s changes are confusing, and aren’t supported by the consensus in the previous discussions.Cúchullain t/c 02:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB that a lot of previous discussion of this issue is stranded at the Talk:Hokkaidō Ainu starting here. I agree that any changes to the article name and/or structure should undergo discussion. —  AjaxSmack  00:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this utterly frustrating. I have lost track of what actually is going on, and I don't know who defends which version for what reason. Since I cannot comment about a situation that I do not understand, I will boldly propose what I think is the best way to present the Ainu languages:
1. Ainu languages are a small language family. Among its member languages were:
a. Hokkaido Ainu language
b. Kuril Ainu language
c. Sakhalin Ainu language
The latter two are extinct, which renders Hokkaido Ainu language the only remaining member and hence a language isolate.
Thus, we need four pages, one about the family, one about the survivng and best known member, and two for the other varieties.
2. In many instances when we read about a single Ainu language, especially in modern publications about endangered languages, this clearly refers to the sole survivor, viz. Hokkaido Ainu language. So a redirect of Ainu language → Hokkaido Ainu language as (near-)primary topic makes sense.
3. However, in many good sources, especially older sources, Ainu is treated as a single language with various dialects. I dare to say: we now know better, and the classification of Ainu as a small family is well supported. Anyway, in order to account for this quite common reading of "Ainu language", I propose to turn Ainu language into a dab (as I have suggested before):
Ainu language may refer to

–Austronesier (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks for the proposal. I don't have a particular problem personally with its accuracy, and it is certainly a more structurally pleasing arrangement than the current one. My main issues are related firstly to WP:COMMONNAMES/WP:RF. In almost all references and likely for almost all readers, "Ainu language" refers (primarily) to the language spoken in Hokkaido. (The title "Hokkaido Ainu language", while accurate, violates this as well as maybe WP:ASTONISH.) While having Ainu language as a DAB page assuages some of these concerns, it is a bureaucratic solution that still violates WP:COMMONNAMES. Secondly, as the article notes "the varieties of Ainu are alternately considered a group of closely related languages or divergent dialects of a single language isolate." This proposal endorses one of these conflicting views.
To avoid endorsing one view and to get readers where they want to go, I repeat my call for a merger of all of the Ainu articles. The Kuril and Sakhalin articles are tiny and would fit nicely in the current article which is not too long. There is no need for four separate articles. This is how almost all other Wikipedias deal with it. The issue of whether Ainu is one or several languages can be dealt with (as it is now) in the article text. —  AjaxSmack  21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just asked by Austronesier to give a comment. I do support their proposal: Ainu(ic) as a language family with three documented member languages. A major problem with WP:COMMONNAMES is that it lacks the notion of time. If trends shift, cumulative counts can hardly be an important factor. Currently I have no stat to back up my impression but it appears increasingly popular among linguists to treat Ainu as a small language family (e.g., Glottolog).
BTW, Hattori and Chiri (1960) did a lexicostatistic study on Hokkaido and Sakhalin Ainu. You would have a serious doubt on dating (I do!). Nevertheless their basic vocabulary data are precious. Their study suggests that Hokkaido Ainu shared only about 70% of the basic vocabulary items with Sakhalin Ainu. --Nanshu (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per AjaxSmack, I agree that the best solution is to combine them all into one. We don't yet have specialized enough sources to delineate the differences between each dialect / language in a detailed way. Right now, all the important information could easily fit into a single article. Naomi.piquette (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's content on Ainu languages, mostly on diachronic questions, that's an unnecessary distraction in the Hokkaido Ainu article and useful to have in a separate place. I support Austronesier's proposal; it's the best solution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support Austronesier's proposal to turn Ainu language into a dab. I disagree with merging all of the Ainu articles because separate articles should be provided for different subjects and reducing articles is not good for the development of Wikipeia.--ABCEdit (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the proposal to turn Ainu languages into a dab. Hokkaido Ainu could be its own article, with Sakhalin Ainu and Kuril Ainu appearing under a section header of 'Extinct Ainu languages' on the page Ainu languages.
As is unfortunately the case for a lot of indigenous languages, through cultural erasure, information on extinct dialects can be scant. Unless someone can drum up enough sources for both extinct varities of the Ainu language, I'd say only Hokkaido Ainu needs its own separate article.
Also, @ABCEdit: - I feel I have to point out, the development of Wikipedia isn't a clear path, and sometimes, sweeping up stub articles can be good for its development. For instance, a lot of the Japanese culture articles I have on my watchlist are extremely stubby, having been created in the untold depths of the late 2000s, and never been touched since; due to the development of editorial standards since this time, at some point, they probably will need conglomerating into the one article, which improves the project. Sometimes, too many little articles makes things a bit worse. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are still commenting, I'll sum up what I see above, that there is general consensus that the family and language should have separate articles. The dispute is on what to call the language article: either "Ainu" or "Hokkaido Ainu". If the latter, the question is whether "Ainu" should be a rd or a dab. Per TWODABS we would customarily handle this with a hatnote at the language article. Personally, I think "Ainu language" (i.e., Hokkaido) and "Ainu languages" works just fine, but don't care very much either way. (Though, for the reader's convenience, if the lang article is not under "Ainu", I would prefer a rd and a hatnote to a dab page.) However, several editors have in the past gotten seriously upset about the lang being called "Hokkaido Ainu", and that seems to have driven much of the dispute. With it currently under "Ainu language", no-one seems to be upset, even if they might prefer something else. So maybe this is something we can all live with? — kwami (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Aynu=itak"?[edit]

Yesterday I removed "Aynu=itak" from the Ainu languages article, thinking to myself, oh, that's an error; the editor clearly meant to put "Aynu-itak" instead.

However, today I see "Aynu=itak" at the top of this article; is it not meant to be a dash? I have to say I've never seen '=' used to transcribe languages into English.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Speaker Count[edit]

The most recent native speaker count for the language was fourteen years ago at ten people, if not a more recent count then maybe a question mark or acknowledgment of outdated information since such a low number means it could be very different by now. Paigejaru (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ELP reports 2 speakers as of 2012. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hokkaido Ainu langauge" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hokkaido Ainu langauge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 16#Hokkaido Ainu langauge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Languages of the World[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Porkey & Toothy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Xeimonanthos, Pufferfish12, Wii sports resort cycling olympian, Alichtwa.

— Assignment last updated by Jennifersanchez0410 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH473 INLG480 Living Languages[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2022 and 31 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmbower97, Tayahenderson (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Inkekwap (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Briansuchowierski.

— Assignment last updated by Nurbekyuldashov (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ainu languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ainu languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ainu_language&oldid=1204623050"