Central Eurasian Language Grammars project/organising: Difference between revisions
Firespeaker (talk | contribs) m →Turkic |
Firespeaker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
==== Turkic ==== | ==== Turkic ==== | ||
{{Infobox Central Eurasian Language | |||
|Language=Kumyk | |||
|UNESCOstats=458,121 speakers (2002 census) | |||
|UNESCOstatus=unsafe | |||
}} | |||
* '''Sakha''' | * '''Sakha''' | ||
** UNESCO: unsafe, 456,288 speakers (2002 census) | ** UNESCO: unsafe, 456,288 speakers (2002 census) | ||
Line 99: | Line 102: | ||
* '''Khakas''' (Kacha, Sagay, Kyzyl, Koibal, Beltir, Shor) | * '''Khakas''' (Kacha, Sagay, Kyzyl, Koibal, Beltir, Shor) | ||
** UNESCO: definitely endangered, 52,217 speakers (2002 census) | ** UNESCO: definitely endangered, 52,217 speakers (2002 census) | ||
{{Infobox Central Eurasian Language | |||
|Language=Southern Altay | |||
|AlternateNames=Altay, Teleut (Telengut), Telengit | |||
|URLs=[http://lingsib.iea.ras.ru/en/languages/teleut.shtml Teleut on lingsib.iea.ras.ru] | |||
|UNESCOstats=50,000 speakers (estimate based on the 2002 census of the Russian Federation; 65,534 speakers of Altay languages collectively, which may be a slightly inflated figure) | |||
|UNESCOstatus=definitely endangered | |||
}} | |||
* '''Khalaj''' | * '''Khalaj''' | ||
** UNESCO: unsafe, 42,100 speakers (2000 census) | ** UNESCO: unsafe, 42,100 speakers (2000 census) | ||
{{Infobox Central Eurasian Language | |||
|Language=Dolgan | |||
|UNESCOstats=4,865 speakers (2002 census) | |||
|UNESCOstatus=definitely endangered | |||
}} | |||
==== Mongolic ==== | ==== Mongolic ==== |
Revision as of 08:29, 30 March 2009
<accesscontrol>CELG</accesscontrol> This page is here for organising thoughts for the Central Eurasian Language Grammars project.
This includes at to-do list and ideas on the name(s) of the volume(s).
The bulk of it, though, is ideas for organising the languages by volume (currently #Medium-density, #Low-density, #Critical, and #Extinct / Historic). Along with the languages in each section are UNESCO declarations about the relative endangerment of the language (including estimates of the number of speakers), and also ideas for who could write a chapter on the language.
There's also a few notes on #Size concerns.
To-do
Organisational stuff
- Figure out criteria for what constitutes what kind of language.
- Decide on whether to include large numbers of Uralic and Iranic languages.
Getting things moving
- Decide on people to contact,
Name
Ideas for what to name the various volumes go here:
- A linguist's {guide/guidebook/handbook/(desk) reference} {to/of/for/on} (the?) {Medium Density/Low Density/Critical/Extinct~Historical} languages of the Central Eurasian Sprachbund.
- A {guide/guidebook/handbook/(desk) reference} {to/of/for/on} (the?) {Medium Density/Low Density/Critical/Extinct~Historical} languages of the Central Eurasian Sprachbund for linguists!
Language Organisation
Languages are broken down by what volume they should occur in, and then genetic affiliation. Ideas for contributors are included with each language, as well as some info from UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger.
Medium-densityTurkic
Mongolic
IE
|
Low-densityThese are low density languages. UNESCO rates most of these languages as unsafe or definitely endangered. Turkic
Mongolic
Tungusic
IE
Other
|
CriticalThese are moribund and maybe recently dead languages. Many are classified by UNESCO as severely endangered, critically endangered, or extinct. Turkic
Mongolic
Tungusic
Uralic
IE
|
Extinct / HistoricMost of these won't be able to have full grammars written on them, and many won't be able to have more than "present level of knowledge about the language" written. Maybe this volume should be of a slightly different nature. Turkic
Mongol-Xianbeic
IE
|
Size concerns
A decent-quality bare-bones grammar of a medium-density language would be a minimum of about 20 pages, and a more full grammar might be as much as 50 pages. This allows for a maximum of 10-20 languages per volume before a volume starts to get too big. On the level of the volume, do we stress quantity of languages, or quality of grammars (probably the former, but we do want to fit everything)? On the level of the individual language/grammar, we probably stress quality over size? These are things which need to be discussed.