Talk:List of languages by first written account

Canaanite languages

I am not an expert in this subject, but I think that the section that mentions the Canaanite language being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE is POV. The user who added this section (Hil44) appears to be biased regarding this topic (based on his edit history). The claim that has been made is quite extraordinary and contrary to what most scholars in this area think about Semitic and Canaanite languages. 49.178.161.28 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The section that mentions Canaanite languages being attested in the 3rd millennium BCE was made by a user (Hil44) who appears to be biased regarding topics related to the ancient Israelites and the Hebrew Bible. I think that someone with more expertise should look at the claims made in this Wikipedia article and also in the sources that are cited by Hil44, in order to confirm whether or not these extraordinary claims regarding the Canaanite languages have any merit. Thanks. 49.178.161.28 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Roger Woodward seems tentatively accepting of Steiner's decipherment in the introduction to The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia pp. 3–4: "they would appear to preserve a third-millennium BC form of Northwest Semitic". Antonio Morales' review[1] of Steiner's book is more definite:

In conclusion, Steiner's monograph establishes the Semitic origins for some of the apotropaic segments in the Pyramid Texts, previously considered unintelligible parts.

Kanguole 13:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I am the OP for the "Canaanite languages" section on this talk page. The problem I had was the claim that the languages are Canaanite languages, not with the claim that they are Northwest Semitic languages. They may very well be Northwest Semitic, but Canaanite languages are a specific branch of Northwest Semitic.

It's an absolutely extraordinary claim to say that the Canaanite branch of Northwest Semitic is attested in the 3rd millennium BCE, especially so early in the 3rd millennium BCE.

The general consensus is that Canaanite languages are attested from the second-half of the 2nd millennium BCE, with proto-Canaanite going back no further than about 1500 BCE. The controversial claim in question has the Canaanite branch going back almost 1000 years before the earliest possible date of Proto-Canaanite (~1500 BCE). Saegenschnitter (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Does changing "Canaanite" to "Northwest Semitic" address your concerns?

Yes. Thanks. Saegenschnitter (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding the Dispilio Tablet as the oldest currently written account

The Dispilio Tablet ,found in Kastoria Greece, is currently the oldest written account carbon 14-dated to 5202 (± 123) BC with similarities in its carvings signs to the linear A language and from other Paleo-European clay tablets. I will leave the link down below so you can see the corresponding article about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet Ur1540 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of languages, but no-one knows what language is attested by the Dispilio Tablet, because no-one can read it. That is why the second sentence of the article says the list does not include undeciphered writing systems. Kanguole 07:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Organization by derivation instead of strict chronology

One of the most fascinating aspects about the independent invention of writing is that, as far as we know, it was done exactly four times: cuneiform, hieroglyphics, Chinese characters, and Maya glyphs. Perhaps this list should more clearly illustrate these lineages, as all other systems descend from one of these four origin points, with of course the proper treatment of undeciphered isolates. Remsense留 19:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of languages, not writing systems. Srnec (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about why that may be incompatible with the suggestion? Remsense留 21:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This list shows when each language was first attested (and by what text). Some languages have been recorded in several writing systems. Some are first attested in a grammar written in a different language. Evolution of writing systems is interesting, but it would require a completely different organization, and would be best treated in an article with that focus. Kanguole 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worthwhile to ponder a different list with that focus, then? I feel like average people would see the two as somewhat redundant. Remsense留 22:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be more of a bunch of trees than a list. Maybe History of writing is what you want. Kanguole 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sanskrit and. other Indic languages

This article does not state information accurately, Sanskrit was documented near 1500BCE and beyond, not 1st century BCE. It should be corrected as people may use this for papers and whatnot. Ayunipear (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This point is discussed in the second paragraph of the lead. Kanguole 22:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Please change "Mongolic: 13th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)" in By Family to "Mongolic: 7th century (Possibly related Khitan language: 10th century)"

Alexander Vovin's articles on the Khuis Tolgoi inscriptions as well as the wikipedia pages for them and Mongolian writing systems have them written in Middle Mongolian or a closely related language. TurEternal7 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That article seems a bit suspect to me in terms of neutrality. Are there any corroborating citations for the Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi by scholars who were not directly involved in the decipherment project? Remsense诉 07:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

To underline this concern, most of the big claims of that article were added by a user who is now blocked. Remsense诉 07:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Old Dutch

This list has a lot of contestable claims in it. For example, I have honestly never heard of Malbergse Glossen in c.510 or the mid-5th-century Bergakker inscription before. These sound like WP:FRINGE claims. At most, the Bergakker inscription is an attestation of the Frankish language.

The 11th-century Hebban olla vogala is traditionally regarded as the first attestation of "Old Dutch", but it might also be Old English or some really odd West Flemish. Other claimants are the Wachtendonck Psalms (10th century) and the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow (9th century), but scholars (and nationalists) will argue endlessly over whether these are really "Dutch" or rather Franconian or Saxon or some other non-Dutch German dialect.

In other words, there is a wide range of texts claimed to be the "oldest" attestation of "Old Dutch", from the 5th to the 11th century, but who is to say which is right and which is wrong? If scholars cannot agree, then taking a position on a single claimant is WP:POV, is it not? I seriously wonder whether this article is, or can be, encyclopedically meaningful and objective, as these linguistic assessments, and the semantics of what to call them, will always remain somewhat subjective and arbitary. NLeeuw (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Old Dutch section should be somewhat improved with notes about Frankish Mywikimediaaccount (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Dispilio tablet

This article links to Dispilio tablet. That article seems to have serious problems regarding sourcing and notability. Though not a formal AfD (yet), I have here to delete that aricle. Please chime in there if you have an opinion (or help improve the article)! Nø (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor fixes needed

Croatian: Plomin tablet doesn't seem to be a complete sentence. See: its wiki article. Should be moved to the Notes field. Old Hungarian: Szarvas inscription should be removed, as it is only a fringe theory. Thai: The Wiki article of the memorial contradicts with the info written into the Notes field. That comment should be also removed. 149.200.81.196 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Thai note doesn't seem to contradict the article. Kanguole 10:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer! Sorry for the amount of quotes, but they are required to prove my point. The current article says it is original and it has been the consensus for the past 30 years.: "[..] This debate still has not been definitively settled, but subsequent electron microscopy has suggested that the stele is likely to be as old as originally claimed, and the majority of academics in the field today regard it as at least partly authentic. [..] a 1990 analysis using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy found the Ram Khamhaeng stele to be the same age (700–500 years) as four other Sukhothai inscriptions, several proponents remain convinced of the forgery theory, and the debate has not been definitively settled."

The cited source (MSEA epigraphy) is not available for free, so I couldn't check it. Maybe it also refers to debates from that time and not to current ones.

There are 2 sources cited in that Wiki article: a) Intellectual might and national myth : a forensic investigation of the Ram Khamhaeng controversy in Thai society. - Couldn't get access, but the title is very talkative b) Using Ockham's Razor with respect to the Ram Khamhaeng Controversy - it is a short and formal summary rather than a scientific paper, and its short conclusion is "The remarkable duration of the debate [..] the chief proponents of the hypothesis that we were dealing with a recent fake remain

passionately attached to their hypothesis. [..] Vickery, Piriya, Chamberlain, Nidhi, and Michael Wright are very distinct

people with distinct skills [..] Indeed, it would have been the éclat of

the century if they had been able to find a single piece of evidence establishing without

doubt that we were dealing with a modern text and at various stages of the debate it

would appear that they had found something conclusive. [..]"

In overall, either that Wiki article is biased or simply that comment in the Notes field is misleading. 2001:4C4E:1E92:5D00:A1F9:E9FE:B2DE:B7FC (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I do have access to the first source, and I think your assessment based on the title is accurate: it seems primarily concerned with the politics, including academic politics, though it does go into some of the evidence.

Sidwell and Jenny (2021) discuss arguments for both sides, and conclude "The controversy has never been definitely settled, both sides having good arguments for their respective point [of] view". Kanguole 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)