Talk:Armenian orthography reform

Armenian Law

 * Great, now you decide to discuss this...The quote was made when he was the speaker, thus he was speaking on behalf of the government. Besides, that is the official position of the government. It's a law. See the language laws: http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=1793&lang=eng The quote was not attributed as academic work, it was attributed correctly. We need to display that it is indeed an extremist view, shuned by the public and opposed by the government. Wikipedia is NOT Brittanica. Your recent additions such as "Soviet orthography" now lead me to dispute the neutrality, there is an awful lot of undue weight in the article for that very fringe and radical, religious extremist pov.--Eupator 02:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * >> Eupator: Besides, that is the official position of the government. It's a law. See the language laws: http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=1793&lang=eng
 * Show me. I only see, "The Republic of Armenia shall promote unification of orthography of the Armenian language."  This doesn't mention whether they intend to keep the soviet reforms of the 1920s; it only states an action item.Serouj 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know very well what that means. As for 3RR, any change of my additions that I do not agree with is a revert, what you did in this case was a partial revert which is still against Wikipedia policies when you exceed 3. I gave you the link to read, which you obviously didn't! --Eupator 02:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: You know very well what that means.
 * Again, the law states the Republic of Armenia's intent on creating a unified orthography of the Armenian language. The Republic of Armenia, as yet, has not unified the orthography and therefore you don't see a link to any document on any specifics of that unified orthography.  We both know that de facto the Armenian government has been using the Reformed spelling; it is not the law, though.Serouj 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Former Speaker of House

 * >> Eupator: The quote was made when he was the speaker, thus he was speaking on behalf of the government.
 * Although the quote may have been made when he was a speaker, it is the speaker's own, individual opinion. The question asked to him is, "What do you think about the issue of the common Armenian orthography?"  If he was speaking on behalf of the government, the question directed to him would have been, "What is the government's stance on the Armenian orthography?"  Indeed, this issue is an active debate today in Armenia, and the government has not come up with a stance yet (please see AZG Armenian Daily #228, 14/12/2005).  Cheers! And take it easy.Serouj 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * >> Eupator: We need to display that it is indeed an extremist view, shuned by the public and opposed by the government.
 * Eupator, this is clearly not the case - it's not an extremist view. We've already shown that it's an active debate in the political scene in Armenia (see the AZG article referenced above).  I don't think a Professor of Linguistics and former director of the Matenadaran Institute (Levon Khacheryan), the Gandzasar Theological Center, nor the Armenian Relief Society represent "extremist" views.  As there is an active political debate, both sides bring forth their valid concerns. Serouj 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements of the Foreign Minister

 * "There might be a decision to set up a commission to undertake once and for all the orthography issue." - Vartan Oskanian, Foreign Minister of Armenia. There you have it - the foreign minister of Armenia himself says the issue is as yet unresolved as far as the Armenian government is concerned.  Case closed.Serouj 06:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Orthography Names & Current Events
Indeed, this issue is an active debate today in Armenia, and the government has not come up with a stance yet (please see AZG Armenian Daily #228, 14/12/2005). Cheers! And take it easy.Serouj 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: Your recent additions such as "Soviet orthography" now lead me to dispute the neutrality, there is an awful lot of undue weight in the article for that very fringe and radical, religious extremist pov.
 * I'm only mentioning the fact that "soviet orthography" is another commonly used term for the same thing - Reformed spelling. I don't think it's condoning this or that opinion.  As argued above, this is a legitimate political debate in modern Armenia, and not an extreme point of view.  Cheers!Serouj 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just wishful thinking. The AZG article clearly shows that the event was organized by foreigners with the majority of the participants also being foreigners. 9 out of 10 people in Armenia are not even aware that there is another version of spelling. How can you call this an active political debate? The flag and that God awful anthem will be changed ten times over before anyone even listens to this fringe movement without laughing. The movement to change the anthem is an active political debate not this delirium.--Eupator 03:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: 9 out of 10 people in Armenia are not even aware that there is another version of spelling.
 * That only shows a lack of education and awareness.Serouj 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: How can you call this an active political debate?
 * It is what it is - a political debate.Serouj 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: The flag and that God awful anthem will be changed ten times over before anyone even listens to this fringe movement without laughing. The movement to change the anthem is an active political debate not this delirium.
 * You're most certainly entitled to your opinion.Serouj 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people wish they had such a high level of education and literacy rate. Which politicians are debating this? Where are the proposed or passed resolutions? Anyone can separate my opinion from the facts with ease.--Eupator 03:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know as yet. Maybe a Google search can turn up results, though.Regards.Serouj 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for us you have 24 hours to learn and come back.--Eupator 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was quite a diminutive comment. You have as much reason (if any) to produce these results as I do.  I've already shown what "the law" is: it does not enforce Reformed spelling, nor does it enforce Classical; rather, it states its intent to resolve the issue in a future time.  Cheers.Serouj 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're confused now. The response was regarding your "political debate" dubious allegations and the aforementioned "google check". Good luck with that. As for the law, it enforces what's currently used. --Eupator 04:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No my friend; no "confusion" here. The facts speak for themselves.  I think you have lost this debate.  Cheers!Serouj 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to do a little less of that sort of "thinking" and try to be a little more useful.--Eupator 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop the diminutive remarks; they're counterproductive. Յարգէ՛ որ յարգուիս։Serouj 08:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * >> Eupator: The AZG article clearly shows that the event was organized by foreigners with the majority of the participants also being foreigners.
 * Please be more thoughtful. They're not "foreigners"; they're Armenians, just like you.  And you owe the existence of the state of Armenia (at least 50% of that effort) to those "foreigners," because they helped create the first Republic of Armenia, without which today's Armenia would not exist.Serouj 03:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're getting emotional now and it's not helping your case. Anyone who is not a citizen of ROA is a foreigner, regardless of their ethnic origin. It's a country not a club house. Those that established the DRA could not have been foreigners if they created the DRA. Very simple logic.--Eupator 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This particular thread (starting from "Eupator: The AZG article clear...") is an aside, and not part of "my case," therefore, emotions are OK here :). As I see it, Armenians who haven't lived in the Republic of Armenia but have been actively involved in their community in the Diaspora are not "foreigners" to Armenia and should be welcome in Armenia; after all, both "sides" are working for the same cause, and it is in the best interest for both to be working together.  It might be better to refer to them as "Diasporan Armenians," not "foreigners," with some ulterior motive working against the cause.  (That's just my opinion.)  Take care.  Serouj 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious that personal opinions are irrelevant here, I for one am not interested in yours.--Eupator 04:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your free will!Serouj 04:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The probem is that the last person who learned the Mesrobian spelling in Armenia died about 5 years ago. Now there is nobody left that would know it. Those living today learned the 1922 spelling, except for brief introductions to the literature of the diaspora in high school or the university, which they took as a curiosity and never gave it a second thought. We are not going to be able to teach them a "new" and more difficult spelling. The only possible solution is to accept that they write differently and go on with life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbaltayian (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Diaspora Conferences

 * I think that the Armenian Diaspora Conferences in Yerevan (all three) should be mentioned (in passing) in the article, as it is one of the venues where orthography is being discussed. Serouj 07:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sovietization of Language in other former soviet states

 * Something I found interesting: "...It uses the traditional Belarusian orthography, which was changed by decree under Joseph Stalin's regime in 1933." Apparently, Armenia wasn't the only victim...Serouj 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reform for Armenian came about while Lenin was leader of the USSR, not Stalin. Lenin's time was more a time of indigenisation (see korenizatsiya). The sovietisation/russification came before and after. - Francis Tyers · 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

please add transiterations and translations
It will be useful for non-Armenian readers. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)