Talk:ISO 639:kex

Dhodia language or Canarese Konkani?
Hello, I noticed that you changed this redirect from pointing indirectly to Canarese Konkani to pointing to Dhodia-Kukna language. I have also seen that in Glottolog, the code [kex] has been retired in favour of [dho]. This is based on a quote from S. P. Ahirwal. Since the name Kukna is also used for Canarese Konkani, could it be that there is a misunderstanding and that [kex] should actually refer to Canarese Konkani/Canara Konkani/Karnataka Konkani and not to Dhodia-Kokna, as asserted in Ethnologue and some other sources, or is this a definitive retraction for the code [kex]? The Discoverer (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the spellings Kokna and Kukna are used interchangeably in both contexts, I have redirected Kukna language to Kokna language, and made the latter a disambiguation page. The Discoverer (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it could be, but the location of Kukna [kex] according to Ethnologue does not match the location of Canarese Konkani according to our article. Glottolog merged Kukna [kex] and Dhodia [dho] as Dhodia-Kukna [dho] due to mutual intelligibility. If you think their judgement is wrong, we need some RS to support that conclusion. And it should also indicate whether we or Ethnologue + Glottolog are correct about the location of the language. — kwami (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply . The Ethnologue includes 'Karnataka state: Dakshina Kannada (Kanara) district' as part of the location of [kex], which is also the location of Canarese Konkani. However, the regions 'Gujarat state' and 'Rajasthan state' mentioned do not match the location of Canarese Konkani. I am not disputing the decision to merge the Kukna (Bhil) language with the Dhodia language. I am just considering the possibility that the code [kex] should refer to Canarese Konkani (also called Kukna) rather than to the Kukna (Bhil) language. The Discoverer (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, Ethnologue classifies [kex] as a language in the Konkani family. The Discoverer (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Ethnologue confused the two Kuknas and conflated them under [kex], and that Harald took [kex] to be the northern one because the southern one is not a distinct language. But because the southern one is not a distinct language, it shouldn't have an ISO code anyway. Unless we have RS's that Canarese Konkani *is* a distinct language? — kwami (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Konkani macrolanguage [kok], the dialects are broadly classified into three groups:
 * Northern Konkani or Maharashtrian Konkani
 * Central Konkani or Goan Konkani
 * Southern Konkani or Canarese Konkani / Canara Konkani / Karnataka Konkani / Kukna
 * Now if we leave aside the code [kex], then the situation is that Maharashtrian Konkani is assigned the ISO code [knn], leaving Goan Konkani and Canarese Konkani to be grouped together under the code [gom]. Since the Northern and Southern Konkani both vary from Central Konkani by a similar amount, it would be logical to have individual ISO codes for the three groups.
 * If we look at Masica's inventory, he lists Konkani-1 (which corresponds to Goan + Canarese), Konkani-2 (which corresponds to [knn]) and also Konkani-3 -see kokna., and then kokna, also kokni, kukna -a Bhili dial. of N Konkan, Sur at, and Dadar­-Nagarhaveli; 152,987 in 1971; same (?) as LSI's konkani-3. I suppose that this Konkani-3 must be Canarese when considered separately from Goan Konkani.
 * The Discoverer (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)