Category talk:Hismaic language

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Category talk:Hismaic language. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Category talk:Hismaic language, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Category talk:Hismaic language in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Category talk:Hismaic language you have here. The definition of the word Category talk:Hismaic language will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofCategory talk:Hismaic language, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

RFM discussion: June 2016–February 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Next up, the Ancient North Arabian lects. They are understudied, their scripts are not yet in Unicode, and it's not entirely clear what their relationships are. I think the conservative way to add codes for them, given that they are long-extinct and have relatively small, finite lexica, is to assign a code assuming that each one is a separate language from each other and from Arabic. (This will also be helpful down the line when their scripts are encoded.) There appear to be multiple languages being called Thamudic, but that's a bridge that we can cross when the scholarship does. I'd suggest sem-dad (Dadanitic), sem-dum (Dumaitic), sem-has (Hasaitic), sem-his (Hismaic), sem-saf (Safaitic), sem-tay (Taymanitic), and sem-tha (Thamudic). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why sem-dud for Dumaitic? Benwing2 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I suppose we should distinguish Thamudic B, C and D, as sources do... the names are not great, but neither is Category:Tocharian A language, Category:Tocharian B language, Category:Linear A script, Category:Linear B script. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, once they're better understood I expect scholars to attach distinguishing names for them, as has happened in the past. Naturally, we can adapt, so I suppose I support adding the Thamudic X's. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I actually think that on the contrary, the conservative approach would be to keep them all together. Perhaps we should ignore the "conservative" approach and actually look into the existing research to see whether any differentiation has been made. And don't forget that even if there are differences, that doesn't make them necessarily separate languages. Anyway, splitting up ancient languages is very tricky since we have no data about mutual intelligibility (although thankfully politics don't get in the way as much). --WikiTiki89 14:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply