Talk:Batanic languages

I plan to write this article soon.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Batanic languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322042836/http://chl.anu.edu.au/linguistics/projects/mdr/Batanic.pdf to http://chl.anu.edu.au/linguistics/projects/mdr/Batanic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing
Trying to get a grip on the classification makes my head hurt because of all the different names used for the same 3 languages (but when reading it sounds like 7?). Maybe you have a good recent paper to improve it? Glennznl (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ross (2005) lists four languages: Yami, Itbayat, Ivatan and Babuyan. Ethnologue lumps Itbayat and Ivatan as "Ivatan" (and calls Babuyan "Ibatan"), while Glottog lumps Ivatan and Babuyan as "Ibatan". Sick, isn't it? I'll rectify the Ross quote in the article first, then we can still think about where to proceed. –Austronesier (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks clearer already. It is very strange though how contradictory the sources are. I wonder why that is.Glennznl (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ross writes: "it is questionable whether Itbayat, Ivatan and Babuyan should be regarded as separate languages", and lists several scholars (including Reid) who consider Itbayaten a dialect of Ivatan. Ethnologue (=SIL) usually divides languages by sociolinguistic factors (including mutual intelligbility, but also community perception/attitudes etc.). No idea about what the Glottolog grouping is based on.
 * I just read and added that Blench also lists 4 languages, but it seems like he follows earlier academics and it is not his own research. He does however write that Batanic is a primary branch of Western Malayo-Polynesian and the relationship to northern Philippine languages is still problematic. Do you think we should remove the Philippine branch from the infobox? By any chance, do you have access to https://muse.jhu.edu/article/442226/pdf ?Glennznl (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are basically two positions: Zorc and Blust propose a Philippine subgroup, which includes the Batanic languages (the most recent paper in defense of it is this paper by Blust); Reid does not accept the Philippine subgroup, and considers the Philippine branches as primary subgroups of MP, but not giving any special status to Batanic. So if we remove it here, we should remove it from other subgroup articles as well. But I rather think the question mark in "Philippine (?)" does the job. FWIW, Blench's research in SE Asian studies is rarely really original, and when it is, I suggest to take it cum magno grano salis: some of his papers are quite off the mark. And yes, I have access to MUSE. The review article says that "Ibatan [is] closely related but different from Ivatan". –Austronesier (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright in that case I think we should leave it as it is until more research is done in the future. Who knows, it could end up as a sibbling to the entire Philippine group. Atleast the page looks clearer now.Glennznl (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)