Untitled[edit]

Move to Baltic-Finnic languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippophaë~enwiki (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved. violet/riga (t) 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

This article is a mess, considerable improvement is needed. At least the following point should be addressed:

--AAikio 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map is way off. It includes many non-Finnic languages as Finnic.

I seriously doubt South Estonian language exists[edit]

Who invented this South Estonian language ? I think such language (as language, not group of dialects with shared vocabulary) is totally bogus and certainly it does not deserve any different status than Savo Finnish or East Finnish and many similar groupings.

Also, I think that one 'language' Võro being part of other 'language' South Estonian language is an oxymoron, language subgroups are usually called dialects.

I am totally open to suggestion that Võro-Seto is a separate language and not an Estonian dialect as it has different grammar than Estonian. But dialects of Viljandi county (supposedly part of that South Estonian language) do not use that distinct Võro-Seto grammar at all, the use Estonian grammar. So they speak no more Võro language than Estonians of Kodavere parish speak Votian. In my opinion, if Võro is a separate language then the Võro language is a substratum of Tartu and Viljandi dialects of Estonian language (not that they all constitute the so called South Estonian language). Southern Estonian dialects were grouped together just because they have words not present in other dialects. That is not how languages are defined. Language definition includes Mutual intelligibility so if somebody wants to say people in Viljandi county speak South Estonian language, then they should understand Seto better that Estonian which I am sure is not the case.

Remove South Estonian language from the language list?

Warbola 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Warbola: Seems South Estonian is as different as Votic or Livonian. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B8 --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baltic-Finnic[edit]

Is the name Baltic-Finnic preferred over Finnic? Considering the name looks similar to Baltic, in al inguistic sense, I think it could cause confusion. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Finnic" is commonly used to refer to the Finno-Permic branch of Finno-Ugric languages. --Vuo 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Yeah, it appeared the word was in real use by linguists... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not true that "Finnic" is used in the same sense as Finno-Permic. "Finnic" means the same as "Baltic Finnic". It is rarely used to refer to Finno-Permic by non-specialists, but Finno-Ugric linguists consider this use of the term erroneous.--AAikio 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that (at least in Finland and Estland) people are not extremely aware of "Volga-Finnic" groups such as Mordvinian. This is no real argument in an encyclopedia; the specialist terminology, which was created in order to cover the fuller reality, is to be preferred. (The term "Volga-Finnic", incidently, is fairly old; perhaps it is rejected as too unprecise today?) There are a number of Americans who use the term English to refer to American English, and consider other forms as deviations from this; they are mostly aware of the existence of British English, but not of e.g. Australian Engish (and tend to correct what they believe are spelling mistakes by Australians). The wiki project has not catered to this view - even if it reappears now and then by authors who claim e.g. that the number of hits of a form on the internet should define it. I don't think we should, as concerns the Finnic language group either. JoergenB 12:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages? Is that a joke? Please rephrase so that it would make sense. And regarding the discussion here earlier about Finno-Permic, please do not use not sourced opinions for backing up any claims. There are multiple interpretations of how exactly the Finnic languages are group together or not. There are no rules here like in mathematics; every researcher has their own opinion. What is the case though, Baltic Finnic is most often referred to as Finnic only by the Baltic-Finnic linguists perhaps as I've lately learned. So please AAikio, provide the source who says that Finno-Ugric linguists consider this use of the term erroneous Meanwhile, since the article is not refed with any sources, next time I'm going to come by, all opinions regarding Baltic-Finnic=Finnic are going to be challenged since it is factually incorrect. Please meanwhile fix the article according to the facts. I'm not going to tag it just yet even though there are no sources provided of any kind and it shows in the text. Thanks--Termer 09:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your post is utterly confused. Yes, Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages. Baltic languages are Indo-European languages, whereas Baltic-Finnic languages are Uralic languages. This is no more a joke than the fact that Spanish is not related to Basque. I think you should check the basics before making any edits to articles when you're clearly not acquainted with the subject matter. I wouldn't myself start challenging anything in a zoological article if I didn't know the difference between cats and dogs. As to your idea of adding references, this is of course a very good suggestion and I will add one. When you encounter unsourced linguistic claims that you find suspicious, please add a fact tag so other users can check them and add appropriate references. --AAikio 07:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the terminological note and a reference to Finno-Permic languages. --AAikio 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since nothing has been done to straighten up the article, I've fixed up the header according to facts. For example Baltic-Finnic is not Finnic like the article claimed before but just one branch of Finnic languages beside of Volga finnic. etc. There is still a lot of work to be done, feel free to help out anybody. thanks--Termer (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. There is no such a language as "Southern Estonian" , instead there are Võro and Seto languages spoken in Southern Estonia. That was fixed in the article as well.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, you've once again displayed your complete ignorance abut the topic of the article, but still claim that you have fixed it according to the "facts". Great, I provided a reference for what 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean. You chose to ignore it and now returned the incorrect statements to the article, and made it inconsistent with the article Finno-Permic languages. Moreover, now you claim that there is no such language as South Estonian. But I could immediately give a list of a dozen scholars who have published studies on this or that linguistic question on South Estonian. So you claim that these linguists have studied nothing, because such a language does not exist? This is pure idiocy. Now, I am not going to revert any of your edits just because I know them to be incorrect and I could provide references that them as incorrect. It is just a waste of time, because - it seems - here on Wikipedia any anonymous know-nothing is on a par with an expert in any field. But maybe someone else will revert them, we shall see. --AAikio (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for providing refs frot what 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean. Feel free to add those refs to the article. There are 5 other referenced interpretations what exactly 'Finnic', 'Baltic Finnic', and 'Finno-Permic' mean currently also added to Finnic languages, therefore what you consider "correct" is just one way to look at it. Also "South Estonian" is used in historic context spoken in the historic Livonia in contrast to "Northern Estonian". Using the term "South Estonian" nowadays would be like calling Hungarian language "Southern Finno-Ugric language" and Finnish language would be "Northern Finno-Ugric language". --Termer (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will just point out that once again you manage to show your ignorance of the subject you are writing about. You say:
""South Estonian" is used in historic context spoken in the historic Livonia in contrast to "Northern Estonian". Using the term "South Estonian" nowadays would be like calling Hungarian language "Southern Finno-Ugric language" and Finnish language would be "Northern Finno-Ugric language". "
This is flat-out wrong. Like I said, there are many linguists who use the term South Estonian (or e.g. its Finnish equivalent eteläviro) for the language (dialect, language group, whatever). I will give just one example published this year: Petri Kallio in his paper Kantasuomen konsonanttihistoriaa discusses the historical phonology of Finnic languages, and shows that present-day South Estonian (= eteläviro) retains many archaic characterestics that have hitherto not been noticed. This paper is published in Jussi Ylikoski & Ante Aikio (eds.), Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit - Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007, Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 253.
This is the usage that you label as ignorant as calling Hungarian "Southern Finno-Ugric language" (which it has, in fact, never been called by anyone). So you are essentially saying that the linguists publishing on these questions do not know their trade, at least as far as terminology goes. I wonder who should one rely on in this terminological dispute: the published linguists themselves, or an anonymous Wikipedia editor who at first did not know that Baltic-Finnic languages are unrelated to Baltic languages? --AAikio (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petri Kallio is free to label any languages on geographic basis. And in case in his book exist a language called "South Estonian" feel free to add "according to Kallio" to the article. However, WP is way ahead of Kallio: the language he is referring to is either Seto language or Võro language. WP only knows of the South Estonian dialects, not a single language , the idea that was there perhaps hundreds of years ago.
did not know that Baltic-Finnic languages are unrelated to Baltic languages? Who or what gave you such an idea? However thats not exactly correct either. There are many loans in Baltic-Finnic languages that come straight from Baltic languages, they belong to different language families though, and "everybody" knows that. So I have no idea what are you talking about while referring to my presumed knowledge. --Termer (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, I have not taken any definite stance on whether South Estonian is a "language" or something else (a dialect group, a group of languages, or whatever), and neither has Petri Kallio. My impression is that you have been opposing the use of the term 'South Estonian' altogether, and blaming those who use it for ignorance, even though it is your claims that altogether contradict the established praxis in the field.
Your comment, once again, only shows me your ignorance of the established linguistic terminology. Now you say that Kallio "is free to label any languages". But Kallio has not labeled anything, he has just continued an established practice. It is not Kallio's invention to use the term 'eteläviro' (= 'South Estonian'), the same term is routinely used by numerous linguists working on Finnic.
And then, even though you're apparently quite unaware of the terminology these linguists are using, you now claim that the Wikipedia is "way ahead" of scholars who are at present actually working and publishing on these issues. This claim is so utterly bizarre and senseless that I'll restrict myself only to saying that it is actually against Wikipedia guidelines to get "way ahead" of anything, because that would be original research.
Just to make it clear, I do not have anything against the use of such terms as 'Seto language' and 'Võro language', but I do not have anything against the term 'South(ern) Estonian' either'. Because these two "languages" are mutually only in a dialectal relationship, it is linguistically entirely justified to refer to them as single language (or linkage, or dialect group, or whatever) in a linguistic context. The traditional term for this is 'South Estonian', and this is a well-established practice known to everyone in this linguistic field, regardless of whether you like this terminology or not. Even so, also the terms 'Seto language' and 'Võro language' can naturally equally well be used in any context where this seems appropriate - for example, to emphasize the different historical backgrounds and ethnic identities of these two groups.
Then about my comment on Baltic languages - you originally wrote above as follows:
"Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages? Is that a joke? Please rephrase so that it would make sense."
So I can only repeat my comment above. Quite so, Baltic-Finnic languages are not genetically related to Baltic languages, that is not a joke. So the answer to your question ("Who or what gave you such an idea?") is you.--AAikio (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for pointing out that Seto language and Võro language didn't have any direct intext refs attached to the articles. I took care of it. And therefore let me rephrase it, there are scholars way ahead of Petri Kallio and it has been reflected in the relevant articles on WP. Most notable in the Northern America who has also studied Võro language directly would be Kara Brown PhD from the Indiana University (Bloomington). And it is linguistically entirely NOT justified to refer to Southern Estonian dialects as a single language since speakers of Mulgi dialect and Tartu dialect, (that were also referred to as South Estonian language in the 19th century) would not understand most often what the speakers of Võru language and Seto language are talking about. Or other way to put it, there are 4 different major dialects in the Southern Estonia, only 2 are considered as separate languages. And it all has been covered at the talk page
Regarding the odd and ambiguous use of English in the sentence pointed out by me earlier, since it seems it has been rephrased I can't see it as a problem any more.--Termer (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, but I must say some of your comments are still confusing. It is still entirely unclear to me in what issue exactly Kara Brown and the Wikipedia are supposedly "way ahead" of Kallio. I already stated that Petri Kallio has not taken any stance on the question whether South Estonian is a single language or something else, and neither have I. Now you write that it is "entirely NOT justified to refer to Southern Estonian dialects as a single language". But I did not write so, instead I wrote that it is justified to refer to South Estonian as a single language or a (single) linkage or a single dialect group, leaving the question open as to how it should be exactly defined. So you're just shadow-boxing here.
It should also be added that there is an alternative, narrower use of the term 'South Estonian' (roughly = Võro and Seto). Now, this presumably could be considered a single language on linguistic grounds - while, at the same time, it can be recognised as two languages on other (political, ethnic, etc.) grounds.
As to the supposedly "odd and ambiguous" English sentence, clearly there was some kind of misunderstanding between us. But I cannot see anything odd and ambiguous about it, and you haven't explained what is wrong with it either. On the contrary its meaning should be crystal clear to anyone who knows what "genetically related" means. But let's leave it at that, there are no doubt more productive ways to use time on the WP for both of us... --AAikio (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AAikio. No problem, it's the best to call it a misunderstanding. Although I'd like to point out once more that it's a bad idea to call speakers of Võru and Setu all together "South Estonian language".(at the time when South Estonian dialects would be just fine) Bard me if I'm not going to look up for the direct sources at this time but in general. The Seto's are already mentioned in the Russian primary chronicle , they clearly speak their language, they are also culturally different than the rest of the Souther Estonians or anybody living in the neighborhood. Now the Võru dialect or language is often referred to being actually closer to Finnish than Estonian. And that is not surprising since. (I'm sorry I need to look it up again if it was after the Livonian War or the Great Northern War), after the war there was massive migration from Finland to the area since there was literally nobody left to farm the land. So it's safe to say that the speakers of võru are descendants of Finns from Finland and Setos are ancient local people. Whatever similarities there are between the languages (other than both being Baltic Finnic) must come from interaction with each other during the last centuries. And of course , this remains entirely "WP:OR" until I've taken my time, looked up the books again and written it into the article according to the published sources. All the best!--Termer (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, and many thanks for your comment. I have no problem with the notion that the Setos are culturally very different from Võro speakers, this is quite well-known already. However, if two groups have very different cultures and even consider themselves as two distinct ethnic groups, this does not necessarily always mean that they speak linguistically clearly distinct languages (comapre, e.g., the case of Serb vs. Croat 'language', or Hindi vs. Urdu 'language'). There are several criteria how 'languages' can be defined; it is fine that Võro and Seto are considered different languages on cultural or historical grounds, but at the same time they might be called the same language on linguistic grounds. This depends on how one chooses to define a 'language'.
Then again, I cannot imagine in what reference Võro is referred to being closer to Finnish than to Estonian. I have never come across any such suggestion in any reference, an to me as a linguist, native speaker of Finnish and a student of Võro language, it seems just bizarre: it is quite like saying than Norwegian is closer to German than to Swedish. I dare say that no linguist with any knowledge of the Baltic Finnic languages has ever subscribed to such a suggestion. Moreover, I have never heard of the mass migration you speak of, and the idea that "the speakers of võru are descendants of Finns from Finland" strikes me as nonsense. --AAikio (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't strike me at all that people often think "in case I haven't heard about it, it doesn't exist or must be nonsense". But not to worry, I'll take it as a motivation to look up the books and citations for these facts regarding Finnish migration to Southern Estonia. It might be that you're not the only one who has not heard about it. For now -the fact that Võru is thought to be closer to Finnish than Estonian was also mentioned at the University of Virginia article by Kara D. Brown [1]. Here is another one by Kara D. Brown @ World congress on language policies Finnish and Võro are believed to be more closely related to each other than Võro with standard Estonian--Termer (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK AAikio, looked it up for you, here are the facts about the major Finnish migration into Estonia that took place during the reign of Gustav II Adolf at the time when both Finland and Estonia/Livonia were part of Swedish Empire. The original source was the Swedish Census in 1638-1641, the facts were published in an old history book I had handy. According to the Swedish Census at the time up to 75% of farms in Swedish Estonia/Livonia had became deserted and remained unoccupied after the wars. The migration of Finns to Estonia resulted of being 12-20% of the population in the Northern Estonia and partly up to 39,8% in Southern Estonia/Livonia. A particular center of Finnish settlement has been mentioned in the 1638-1641 Census at Põltsamaa. I don't know if it has anything to do with "Finnish and Võro are believed to be more closely related to each other" but thats what the facts are: somebody definitely descends from Finns in Southern Estonia. Later after the Great Northern War there was also some migration reported from Finland to Estonia according to the census made by the Russian Empire but the settlements were not as significant as the ones established during the times of Gustav II Adolf.--Termer (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a very brief comment. Okay, I looked up your "reference" on the Finnish-Võro connection, which is an internet page containing a text written by Kara Brown. In this text, there is just one sentence in parentheses on this issue, namely the following:
"Moreover, the similar languages (Finnish and Võro are believed to be more closely related to each other than Võro with standard Estonian) and the geographic proximity facilitate the flow of ideas from North to South and vice-versa and joint projects."
There are several things that are worth noting here. First: this statement is not published in a reliable source (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal or other scientific publication), but on an internet page. Second, Brown provides no references on what her statement is based. Third, the idea is expressed extremely vaguely; there is no explanation of how Finnish and Võro are supposed to be more closely related to each other, or who believes such a thing, etc. Fourth, there is no published peer reviewed source documenting such an idea, and I have never met any comparative linguist during my life who subscribed to such a strange idea (note that I am a professional comparative linguist actively working and publishing on the Uralic languages, and I certainly should know if someone had argued such a view in any detail anywhere). Hence, the only conclusion I can make is that Brown either failed to express her idea correctly or simply was in error. But in any case, all you have in support of this linguistic claim is one obscure and unreferenced sentence in parentheses that you have located on the Internet. Frankly, that is not worth anything, and it is just sad if this is the kind of information that in your opinion places Wikipedia "way ahead" of published papers by currently active scholars.
As to the idea that there has migration from Finland to (South) Estonia, I never denied this; what I considered (and still consider) nonsense was the claim that South Estonians are (entirely? mainly?) descendants of Finnish-speaking Finns (you wrote: "it's safe to say that the speakers of võru are descendants of Finns from Finland"), and that Võro is closer to Finnish than to Estonian. But I will now end, for my part, this fruitless debate. --AAikio (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, once more, the use of South Estonian language as an ambigious term should be avoided in the context because it refers also to the language spoken in the entire Northern Livonia in the 19th century that included the Tartu dialect etc. as opposed to the way some ignorant scholars use it nowadays for the language that has it's name, either Võru or Setu. And sorry, regarding Finnish-Võru, I can't take an opinion of an anonymos Wikipedian claiming to be "a professional comparative linguist" as a more reliable source than opinion cited at the University of Virginia by Kara Brown, the source you compleatly ignored along the one you took a look at and called an internet page. And certanly, to interpet the facts of Finnish migration to Southern Estonia as South Estonians are entirely? mainly? descendants of Finnish-speaking Finns would be absurd indeed. Why did you project such an absurd idea you came up with on your own to me, I have no idea. I presumed things like the process of ethnogenesis etc. would be common knowledge nowadays. --Termer (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, maybe we have here been talking past each other a bit, and misunderstanding are common in heated debates. But I will have to comment on this: where on earth did you get the idea that I am writing anonymously here? If you look on my user page, you see that I am editing under my real name Ante Aikio, and my signature "AAikio" is short for that. For more information about my person, you are welcome to look at my website [[2]]. That web page will also document the fact that I am, indeed, a professional comparative linguist.
I hope this was, once again, a misunderstanding on your behalf (the only logical alternative to that would be that you are accusing me of identity theft). --AAikio (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ante, nice to meet you, pard' me for my ignorance, you're not an anonymous linguist on WP indeed. Hope you got something out of this discussion, found out why the use of "South Estonian language" is not such a good idea and hopefully you can take it up one day with Kara Brown regards similarities between Finnish-Võru. And if you could please do the article a favor, as according to the most of Finnish linguists Finnic=Baltic Finnic, the fact still is not spelled out in either this or Finnic languages articles. If you could take care of it by citing the most known Finnish linguists by name and adding their interpretation of the Finno Ugric language tree along with the other 5 examples, the articles would benefit from it I think. Take care and all the best!--Termer (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, continuing my selfdesingated quest, in making various maps. Did an Image:ItämerensuomMurreTextiAika.png, tried to check things from many articles, but still don't know how accurate that is, but is it accurate enough? put it in the article if you see it fit. Dreg743 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case the map is about Finnic languages than Hungarian doesn't belong to the group. In case it's about Finno-Ugric languages perhaps you'd like to check out this one

--Termer (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there are some Saami people living (5 %? )in Southern Lapland, most I think use Finnish. The same goes with Northern Norway atlantic coast, where Saami have some villages if I remember correctly. There the language they use is mostly Norwegian, maybe some use also the Kven dialect (which is quite hard to get for a finn from southeast.) Otherwise no objections, as I do not know the current situation in Russia too well. I'll have to check the distribution of Mari language. Thanks for that :-). Dreg743 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know about Finland but traveling in Northern Sweden and Norway, there was Sami language coming from the car radio quite often.--Termer (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, we do have some broadcasting in Sami in Finland, see f.e. http: //lotta.yle.fi/srwebanar.nsf/sivut/ovdasiidu2004 , and regular news on TV (I guess they're at least partly the same than in Sweden and Norway). 91.155.153.179 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me also comment on this: it is a very clear and nice-looking map. However, there's one detail that should be improved. The "Kven" area on the Norwegian coast should also be colored with green lines, because both Saami and Finnish (= Kven) are spoken over this entire coastal area; and Saami certainly even has many more speakers than Kven in this area. Now the map gives the incorrect impression that Saami would be confined to the inland areas and bordered by Kven in the North. --213.139.161.102 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And adding to my previous comment above (forgot to log in, hence the IP): also the distribution of Saami on the Kola Peninsula must be fixed. Now there are green dots covering also the southern side of the peninsula, but Saami has not been spoken in these areas for quite a while; hence the distribution is currently too large. Also some other details could maybe be improved; e.g. Mordvin is definitely spoken in a larger area than now displayed. I think a very good idea would be to check the details against the map "Geographical Distribution of the Uralic Languages" by Riho Grünthal and Tapani Salminen, published by the Finno-Ugrian Society and available at [3] for 9€. --AAikio (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hyphenation[edit]

Why is the title hyphenated? Does anyone other than Wikipedia write "Baltic-Finnic"? kwami (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both forms are used, please see google books or google scholar. "Baltic-Finnic" is definitely more clear in order to avoid confusion with Baltic languages and Baltic peoples.--Termer (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Baltic-Finnic" looks like a grouping of Baltic plus Finnic, which is what we want to avoid. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing the hyphen does not clarify anything. Heyzeuss (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It clarifies that they are not a union of Baltic plus Finnic.
Anyway, Ethnologue 16 has gone with "Finnic" as part of their agnostic subclassification of Uralic, so it's easier just to go with that. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnic peoples[edit]

Aikio, Termer, would you take a look at Finnic peoples? If Finns identify only with Baltic Finnic speakers, this should be reflected in the scope of that article. kwami (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm aware of it, Finns prefer to identify themselves with Scandinavians first of all. Another question is how is someone's self identity and/or soul searching related to a Wikipedia article about a historical group like Finnic peoples? --Termer (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basque language[edit]

There are various theories which assert that the Basque language is somehow related to the Balto-Finnic language group. It would be interesting if the article could mention these hypotheses. ADM (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Theory" means that someone has verified the idea. There are no such theories. kwami (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basque language is somehow related to the Balto-Finnic languags? The only thing in common is that those are the languages spoken in Europe that are not related to Indo-European languages and therefore get often mentioned together. See for example Word origins By Anatoly Liberman p. 170 only Basque, Sami, Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian are not Indo-European. But it doesn't mean that the Basque and Baltic-Finnic languages are related to each other.--Termer (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible historical misnomers[edit]

The idea that Curonian was not a hypothetical Baltic (Indo-European) language, indeed transitional between Lithuanian and Latvian, but rather a Balto-Finnic one, has some good evidence for it. Howerver: only look at where Curonia (Kurzeme) lies, and where the last speakers of modern Livonian have been living! The 'Livonian' speakers actually live in Curonia. Livonia is a historical region spanning both Latvia and Estonia (a German-speaking landholder, like Graf Hermann Keyserling, descended from the Teutonic Knights, was surprised to find his lands split between the two new countries - had hadn't even known that there were two such different nations, they were all his 'Gesinde'!).

Consensus among Uralicists (linguists specializing in the Uralic languages that include Balto-Finnic) is that Balto-Finnic either bifurcates - with 'South Estonian' alone in one branch, all other Balto-Finnic languages in the other branch, which then bifurcates into 'Livonian' versus all-the-rest - or more likely trifurcates: the three branches being 'Livonian', 'South Estonian' and all-the-rest - North Estonian, Vote, Ingrian, Finnish, Karelian, Veps.

The historical vagueness about the names of nations in this area leads me to suggest the following.The 'Livonians' are really the Curonians. The 'South Estonians' are really Livonians. All the others are descended from the Kylfings or some other early-mediaeval or pre-mediaeval group powerful in North Russia and known to have brought trade and agriculture to Finland and other parts of the Far North: the big dialect area of 'all-the-rest' derives from their language, and the tiny handful of remaining Votes are the last descendants of the core of this grouping.UnknownSage (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool story bro. Two points tho:
  • The extirpation of Livonian in Livonia proper, to some degree even its expansion into Courland, is historically documented.
  • WP:OR.
That said, an early association between SE and Liv. is not entirely out of the question, but this really isn't the place to delve into the issue. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish language "map" of the Finnic languages[edit]

This map should not be used as it misrepresents the linguistic situation. Finnish is not spoken only halfway up through Finland, there are no bilingual or multilingual areas represented at all. If nothing else, the map is in Spanish. On the English language wikipedia. I don't have time to fix it; I'll leave that up to someone else. -Yupik (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, the map does show it farther up than halfway, but still nowhere near the actual border of where it's spoken. -Yupik (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have maps in Spanish, German, Russian, etc. Speakers can usually figure them out.
I've checked other maps, and the blank area in the north is partly uninhabited, and partly Saami, just as the blank areas in the south are Swedish. Maps differ as to whether the stipple bilingual areas, only show the ancestral language, etc. If you look at a map of Amerindian languages in North America, almost all of those areas are bilingual, but that's frequently omitted in maps. These are simplifcations that are made to prevent the map from becoming completely illegible. Obviously, if you're traveling in a blank area in Finland, and come across other people, it's a good bet that they speak Finnish, but that's not the same as saying Finnish is endemic to the area, just as English is not endemic to parts of the US and Canada where essentially no-one lives. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same should be applied then to all the uninhabited areas that are currently represented on the map. -Yupik (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are not even the worst problems in the map, though:
  • Karelian is not, and has never been recorded to have been, spoken in the areas of the Republic of Karelia north of Lake Onega.
  • Likewise, the Veps are should be located south and southwest of the lake, not east and southeast.
  • Random empty areas also appear in northern Karelia
  • The Courland Livonian speaking area is somewhat exaggerrated, corresponding to I guess the mid-19th century situation?
  • OTOH, Votic, Salaca Livonian, and Karelian Isthmus dialects of Finnish are not shown at all, though at that kind of a timeframe they definitely should be
  • Also absent are Värmland Finnish and Kven
  • The inclusion of only the largest basin of Lake Saimaa (and also not of Lake Inari, Lake Päijänne etc.) seems awfully arbitrary
For some comparision, consider e.g. this professional map on the topic (the preview should already be sufficient to get an overview of the situation). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That URL does not exist on my server. Do you have another address, or someplace it's been archived? — kwami (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Lfdder.
I must say, those are pretty minor differences. What we have is better than what I'd've expected. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Värmland Finnish? I'd venture to guess that Swedish municipalities like Upplands Väsby or Eskilstuna have several times more Finnish-speakers than all of Värmland. And they are likely far more vibrant Finnish communities.
The Livonian and Ingrian don't make much sense, though. Those are either extinct or on the verge of extinction. And Veps is obviously out of proportion.
Peter Isotalo 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kwami, if a map that misplaces some languages by up to hundreds of kilometers and neglects to even mention others is "better than your expectations", please save us from telling what your expectations are. The relocation of Veps alone is a blunder equivalent to, say, claiming that Welsh is a language spoken in Yorkshire.
I singled out Värmland Finnish since parts of the area have been Finnish-majority since the 17th century, and have their own distinct dialect. If we wanted to map the "traditional" language situation (including the historically attested full ranges of Livonian, Ingrian, Veps etc.), they might have to be included. Sweden Finns in other southern parts of the country, OTOH, are recent migrants from all over Finland and are only numerically distinguished from Finnish diaspora anyelsewhere.
Something like the map we have at Samoyedic languages would be good to aim for, IMO, if perhaps with different timepoints - the reduction in the ranges of the smaller Finnic languages have been the most drastic over the 20th century, and it's indeed a misleading to claim that e.g. all of Ingria speaks mainly Ingrian. (Also, at the risk of getting ahead of things: the situation in south had been fairly stable for a long time before that though, so we might not want a snapshot circa 1900, as much as one circa 1600, to also demonstrate the northwards spread of Finnish and Karelian?) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Language maps should show either existing languages or historical language regions, but not both at once. That will only confuse and mislead readers. Not to mention discussions like this one.
Peter Isotalo 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trɔpʏliʊm, sounds good. Peter, I agree it might be confusing on a map like this one, where we distinguish individual languages, but it wouldn't be if we only mapped Finnish languages in general. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subgrouping and WP:OR[edit]

The section subgrouping seems to be the work of Wikipedia users. For example, it does not correspond to Sammallahti who is given as a source. This is a rather clear violation of WP:OR which explicitly forbids this practice, and could (and should) be swiftly removed and replaced by a subgrouping coming from a reliable source. Jeppiz (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now read Viitso as well. What we have in this article is not just original research, it's blatant source falsification, approaching vandalism. I'm changing the section to reflect what the sources actually say. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edited the page to reflect what Samallahti and Viitso actually writes instead of the WP:OR-violations that said something completely different and misrepresented the sources. Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A WP:BOLD move, but you appear to have completely ignored Kallio (2014) among the key sources (who, in particular, supports the initial division into Livonian, South Estonian and rest), and for some reason also chosen to delete the discussion of the Southern Finnic and Northern Finnic groups.
Feel free to request additional citations for any particular claims you find confusing or poorly attributed. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I wonder where have you pulled the classifications presented in this diff from. Both Sammallahti (1977: 132) and Viitso (1998: 101) clearly present Livonian and South Estonian as early offshoots, not as coordinate to North Estonian. No offense, but if your reading skills are not up to the level of being able to tell what is said in a source and what is not, throwing around accusations of OR is rather premature. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Samallahti and Viitso clearly list which the current Finnic languages are, and I presented exactly the languages they list. What you're doing is to present your own interpretation of what they say. It's an obvious WP:OR-violation which will end up at WP:ANI if you continue to ignore sources in this way. Jeppiz (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with adding South Estonian, but then based on sources that actually identify it as a separate language (actually, I'll get right to adding such a source), but not sources which say something else.Jeppiz (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please distinguish between "language" and "subgroup". Also, please learn to read sources. The presentation you decry as "original research" is, as far as I can tell, in exact accordance with the sources. In particular note that the well-sourced claim that e.g. South Estonian has split as its own dialect at an early period in no way implies that it would at any point have constituted its own language.
If you have additional concerns, actually listing them would be more productive than waving around blanket accusations. I cannot make heads or tails if you have any legible point to make, if you're confused (which may imply that the article is misleading and needs rewording), or if you're simply being gratuitously hostile. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
…Though I imagine a part of the problem is perhaps that you were expecting a list of the modern Finnic languages, while the Subgrouping section discusses the historical affinities of the Finnic varieties. The actual list you're looking for is located within the infobox. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mordovin?[edit]

As far as I know Mordovin is not generally count as part of Finnic but as a highly close relative? or if so, I doubt it to be uncontested. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mordovin (see above) seems to be a wrong spelling Mordvinic?[edit]

ValtteriLahti12 a native Russian speaker hadn't heard the term in Russia or hadn't read the article Mordvinic languages itself since he uses incorrect English spelling of the term. Why the term is obsolete? Because it has been based on the Soviet period artificially constructed nation (see the articleMordvins first). Please kindly comment before removing the template See respective discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mordvinic_languages#About_the_proposed_merge_with_Finnic discussion. Vaultralph1 (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that this is likely block evasion from Vaultralph (talk · contribs). TylerBurden (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories