Talk:Kalmyk Oirat

Untitled

 * Below is some data from the Kalmyk Manual. Maybe somebody can incorporate it? The book is still under copyright protection.

===CHAPTER 5 Notes on the Kalmyk Language===

Kalmyk belongs to the Western branch of the Mongolian language group, which is an important division of the Altaic family of languages. It is closely related to Khalkha-Mongolian, spoken in Outer Mongolia, now the so-called Mongolian People's Republic, to the various Mongolian dialects spoken in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region and Manchuria, and to Buriat (Buryat), spoken mainly in the Buriat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in the USSR and in the adjacent areas.

Kalmyk is spoken in the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and by the older generation o£ the Sart-Kalmyks numbering from 2,500 to 3,500 and dwelling in the area of Przheval'sk, near Lake Issyk Kul, in the northeastern part of the Kirghiz Soviet Republic. It is also the mother tongue of about 1,500 Kalmyks living outside of Soviet Russia, in a number of European countries (mostly in France, West Germany, and Bulgaria), and in the United States of America.

According to the 1959 census, there were 106,000 Kalmyks in the USSR of which 91% consider Kalmyk as their mother language. To this figure approximately 1,500 émigrés speaking Kalmyk should be added.

Kalmyk is very closely affiliated with Oirat dialects of the Torghut, Derbet, Bayit, Dzakhachin, Uriankha, Dambi-Ölöt, and Mingat tribes in the north-western part of Outer Mongolia, and of the Torghut in Alashan, Dzungaria, Kuku Nor (Kökö Nūr), Northern Tibet, and other scattered areas of Inner Asia.

The Oirat dialects differ from each other only slightly. N.N. Poppe considers them dialects of one language, i.e., the Oirat language. According to him. Kalmyk differs little from Oirat from the point of view of its phonology and morphology; the vocabulary is, however, quite different.

Poppe included the Moghol language, spoken in Central Afghanistan northwest of Kabul by the so-called Moghols, the descendants of the Moghul conqeurors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in the West Mongolian branch, the Oirat and Kalmyk being the other members.

B.Kh. Todaeva, who in 1956 made on the spot investigation of the dialects of Torghuts, Khoshots, and Ölöts in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, came to the conclusion that the Oirat language ("dialects" in her terminology) consists of two subdialects -Torghut and Ölöt which differ only slightly.

The Oirat adopted an alpbabet of their own in 1648. A learned Lamaist monk, Zaya Pandita, created it on the basis of the vertical Mongol script. The Oirat alphabet of Zaya Pandita (1599-1662) is actually an improved and phonetically more precise Mongolian script. The new script, which was brought closer to the actual pronounciation but was never a phonetic one, was used by all Oirats, among them the Kalmyks in Russia. However, the Zaya Pandita script never succeeded in spreading among the Kalmyks, in part because Tibetian became the liturgical language of the Kalmyk Lamaist clergy.

In spite of repeated attempts to brine it closer to the colloquial Kalmyk language, the Zaya Pandita script (in Kalmyk called todo moŋgol) remained always far apart from the latter. It was accesible only to a limited number of people. Such attempts were opposed by the Lamaist clerey. We should bear in mind that this clergy was brought up and educated in Tibetan which was both the instructional and liturgical language in the Lamaist monastic school. and monasteries (xurul).

The Ruasification of the non-Russian peoples of Russia was another important influential factor. The sole administrative language was Russian, which long ago sucessfully supplanted Kalmyk. There were only a few elementary schools where Kalmyk was taught. Thus the Zaya Pandita sript was destined to die out.

In the later part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Zaya Pandita script gradualy fell into disuse until the Kalmyks abandoned it in 1923 and introduced the Russian alphabet, which made it easier tor the illiterate Kalmyks to learn reading and writing. It should be mentioned here that the illiteracy among the Kalmyks was very high.

But soon, in 1930, it was replaced by the Latin transcription. This reform was the result of the Latinization drive for the alphabets of the Turkic-speaking peoples in the USSR. The new Kalmyk alphabet was accordingly based on the Latinized Turkic alphabets. It did not last long, however, and ultimately the Russian alphabet was re-introduced in 1937. The Russian alphabet became firmly established among the Kalmyks (and other peoples, too).

After their return (in 1957) from the forced exile in Siberia and remote areas of Soviet Central Asia (see chapter IV), the Kalmyks began to publish again books, periodicals, newspapers, etc., using the pre-war Russian alphabet. In the latter part of 1957, however, a few othographical changes were adopted, among them the abolition of diaeresis(••) above the vowels а, о, and у and their substitution by new symbols ә, ө, and ү (see the introductory part of the Glossary).

The Kalmyk is divided into three dialects - Torghut [torɣūd], Derbet [dörvəd] and Busava [buzāvə]. The famed Russian Mongolist, B. Vladimirtsov, proposed the following classification of the Kalmyk dialects:

a) Great Derbet [Stavropol'], b) Busava [Don Kalmyks]. a) Ural Kalmyk, b) Orenburg Kalmyk.
 * 1. Derbet (Astrakhan') with the subdialects
 * 2. Torghut (Astrakhan') with the subdialect.

Vladimirtsov admits, however, that the Ural and Orenburg subdialects are insufficiently investigated.

N. N. Poppe, in his earlier articles on the Kalmyk language, considered Busava (Don), Ural and Orenburg Kalmyk as subdialects of Torghut dialect, the other main Kalmyk dialect being Derbet. But in his later work he divided Kalmyk into Derbet, Torghut and Busava dialects.

The Busava dialect is very close to Torghut, and it is spoken by the Don Kalmyks, who before the early 1930's used to live in the Sal'sk district (okrug) of the Don region (oblast') (the region in the southern part of European Russia inhabited mainly by the Don Cossacks). They are the descendants of a group or displaoed Derbets moved to the Don oblast' at the request of the Emperor Peter the Great.

The Derbet dialect, spoken by the Derbet of Astrakhan' (L1ttle Derbet ulus) and Stavropol'

Great Derbet ulus) regions, varies somewhat but insignificantly from the Torghut and Busava dialects in that it frequently has a (I can't read these Mongolian words in Latin)

The dialects spoken by the Ural and Orenburg Kalmyks, the majority of whom were moved to the Kalmyk ASSR in the late 1920's, are also very close to Torghut. N.N. Poppe classifies them as subdialects of Torghut.

In general all Kalmyk dialects are very close to each other, and they differ only slightly. Nothing is known about the dialect of the Terek Kalmyks, who in 1897 numbered some 3,600 people. They too, were moved n the 1920's to the territory of the Kalmyk ASSR.

Until 1934 there existed no standard literary language among the Kalmyks. Both the Torghut and Derbet dialects enjoyed equal rights, although the language textbooks were based on Torghut. W. L. Kotwicz, the chief authority in Kalmyk linguistics, gave the prefrence to Torghut in his Kalmyk grammar. In March, 1934, the decision was reached at the fourth linguistics conference in Elista to adopt the Derbet dialect as the standard literary language.

The single full vowel phonemes of Kalmyk are as follows: i ü  u ɵ  ö  o ä  a

The schwa vowel /ə/ is a highly reduced, indistinct sound. In modern Kalmyk orthography this vowel is disregarded altogether, and there is no special symbol to denote it. The letter ə does exist, but it stands for /ä/.

The vowels i, ü, u, ɵ, ö, o, and a are represented by the following symbols in the present-day Kalmyk alphabet:

--Skipped Section-- A few of the characteristic features of the Kalmyk language are as follows: single- i, ɵ, ä, ü, ö, u, o, a. geminate- ii, ɵɵ, ää, üü, öö, uu, oo, aa. In non-initial syllables, however, the short vowels have disappeared, having been replaced by the schwa vowel /ə/, which has a quality of a highly reduced indictint sound, and syllabic consonants, e.g., ... Notes --Erkin2008 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The presence of two distinctive inventories of vowel phonemes in the initial stressed and non-initial unstressed syllables. In initial position the following vowel phonemes are present:


 * I removed the history part because all the information is already in the Kalmykia article. Can anyone do a fact check on the claim that Kalmucks were not allowed to speak Kalmuck? Andris 16:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Fact check done. "Not allowed to speak" was an exaggeration. Corrected. Andris 20:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

but i do really appreciate correcting of some paragarphs in the article. I should have been more precise about some details for its a source of true knowledge.thank you, Andris.
 * to some degree it was true.For instance, kalmuck children in orphanages during the exile period were not allowed to speak kalmuck to one another by the institution's authorities (its just one example). even upon having returned back home from siberia, children in schools were not allowed to speak kalmuck, even at some work places the kalmucks were not allowed to speak their language.speaking the language was concidered as expression of kalmuck nationalism, though mass media did exist in the kalmuck language, but it all mainly carried declarative character,"on paper".My name is Arslan. i am a kalmuck, and the witnesses for all that are my parents who were born in siberia, my grandparents who were deported to siberia and all the rest of my family. so saying that we were not allowed to speak our language during the soviet period, i meant the period of exile and after.


 * I am strongly opposing referring Kalmyk people as Western Mongols. Historically, Kalmyks always had very high degree of separation from Mongols. Very well known "formula" introduced by Mongols by the way - 4 Kalmyks (Oyrats) and 40 Mongols. Existence of Mongolia brings another confusion into account making impression that Mongolia is Kalmyk motherland. But historical Kalmyk domain has been divided between Russia, China, Kazakstan and Mongolia. So, Western Mongolia is, actually, just Eastern Kalmyk land. Calmouk 19:24, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Kalmyks are Oirats but not all Oirats are Kalmyks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.20.252 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just what I've been most worried about when reading this article. Kalmyk is just a name for two modern Oirat dialects spoken by a shrinking number of native speakers in Kalmykia, while no scientist I'm aware of would label the Oirat in Xinjiang as "Kalmyk". But it would need quite a bit of editing to correct this, and as a precondition for such editing ideally the ability to use a bunch of Russian-language literature that I lack. If anyone was in for that job, I would probably be able to name some useful sources to start with. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added Writing System category Calmouk 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Altaic reference
I removed an awkwardly worded reference to Altaic (diff) and the associated citation request tag. There seems to be no controversy that Kalmyk belongs to a subgroup of the Mongolic language group, and that Mongolic is a component of the Altaic grouping. It is only the validity of the overall Altaic hypothesis that might be in question, but it isn't a matter of Kalmyk having some specific controversy within the Altaic discussion, which the wording seemed to (perhaps unintentionally) suggest. - David Oberst 10:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Total speakers: 518,500
Are there so many kalmyk speakers in russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.20.252 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification
I made some changes in the article regarding the classification of Kalmyk. In the end, this must mean abandoning the Ethnologue classification of Mongolic. While I myself would hold that the classification of Luvsanvandan is most appropriate, the classification of Sanzheev (which is in effect a non-classification by justraposing all major entities) might be most unprejudiced. I've conducted the recent changes in accordance with Sanzheev. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Kalmyk language template
If you are a native speaker of Kalmyk then you can help translate this template into your own language:

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a good idea at all. The template would have to run "This user is a native speaker of Oirat". Kalmyk just WAS the most important dialect of Oirat, but no one seriously doubts that those guys over there in Xinjiang or the Deed mongols speak the same language. It is not entirely my fault that the article on Oirat language is a mediocre stub. Then, we have a second problem. Xinjiang Oirats and Kalmyks use two script systems, Cyrillic alphabet and Clear script, and usually they cannot READ the other script. So which scipt to use in the template? G Purevdorj (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dialect
See Talk:Torgut dialect (talk it here). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The changed link for ISO 639-3 was invalid, otherwise I wouldn’t have reverted this at this point. The claim that Kalmyk is treated as a dialect of Torgut reflects a sourced claim that I wrote on Torgut dialect. While this claim might be problematic and was the reason why 虞海 suggested that it is POV, it does no good to paste an unsourced mirrored claim about the Kalmyk dialect before the issue has been discussed. But I’m in agreement with 虞海 that this problem should be discussed in one place: Talk:Torgut dialect. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion on Talk:Torgut dialect (which is possibly not yet finished) from my point of view seems to point in the direction that the renaming action here might have been wrong. Language is an awkward term, granted, but it is more conventional to use this term for a variety that is a Standard language. Possibly, this usage of the term presupposes that we assume Kalmyk to be a register. The funny thing is that we seem to get into a conflict between two categories of classification: regiolects respective the shunned term dialect vs. Standardized varieties with a lower degree of spoken reality. Eg the normative pronunciation in Khorchin in South Mongolia is set as Chakhar dialect, but no one gives a damn. Anyway, Chakhar is not the Standard language of Mongolian in China, which is termed "South Mongolian" and based on the grammar of Chakhar and Khorchin dialect alike. Another case is Standard Mongolian as spoken in Mongolia which is based on the Khalkh dialect and the language of Mongolian literature. (If we take this definition seriously, the Khalkhas that deviate most from the norm are those of Ulaanbaatar, but de facto they speak on TV and direct the course of language development.) But at least here, there is an approximate correspondence between "Standard language" and an actual dialect. This doesn't hold for South Mongolia, and it seems to hold only to some degree for Kalmyk. As Uwe Bläsing wrote in "The Mongolic languages", "There are two main dialects of Kalmuck. Dörbet is mostly spoken in the west of the Kalmuck Republic, while Torghut prevails in the East. ... The modern literary language is mainly based on the Torghut dialect, though it incorporates a large number of concessions to Dörbet". Here, we have two definitions of Kalmuck in one: 1. a national language (without any necessary linguistic reality); this might be reinterpreted as a cover term for all Oirat spoken in Kalmykia (which might be more or less arbitrary, depending on the strength of Russian language influence on this set of Oirat varieties) 2. a literary language that is related to Torgut dialect, but due to deviations from it is not necessarily spoken. We need to know what THIS article is about, we need a concept that can be defended, and then all the contradictions that are showing up in this article now can be addressed. Any input welcome! G Purevdorj (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Sociolinguistic factors are often more important in determining what is a language and what is a dialect than linguistic factors.  Kalmyk is called a language in much of the literature and its "users" consider it to be a language with a name and a clear identity.  (Taivo (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Page error
What is wrong with Kalmyk language? I can’t open it. I only get the message "override function", and everything else is a complete blank. —Stephen (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it has cleared itself up. Must be my browser. —Stephen (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
1. Sufficient to mention Altaic at Mongolic and its immediate sub-knots. 2. “even in social settings” - any communicative situation with more than one participant is social. So you need to refine this statement. 3. “In Mongolia and the People’s Republic of China, the Kalmyk language is called Oirat.” Well, as much as I agree with emphasizing the similarities between Xinjiang Oirat and Kalmyk Oirat, this statement goes a bit too far. Oirat in Russia is called Kalmyk, not the other way round. 4. While I don’t see much wrong in the recent changes, sources (which may well be written in Russian, but then please with page number) would be useful indeed. G Purevdorj (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Kalmyk and Oirat in various Wikipedias
Wikipedias in multiple languages contain various articles on Kalmyk, Oirat or both of these. In English, Oirat is the general term for the language, while Kalmyk is a term for its most well-known variety. It is sometimes used pars pro toto, but that's not contemporary scientific use. Now I cannot tell whether or not such a pars pro toto use is okay and conventionalized in a particular other language. Therefore, I undertook it a while ago to check out the content of all articles on Kalmyk and Oirat and classified them into articles on Oirat and Kalmyk irrespective of their name. That is, if you want to reclassify anything in this domain, you have to demonstrate that the articles in question are equivalent with respect to content. A bot clearly cannot check this, and therefore I'd be grateful if this side could be spared from its usually beneficial contributions. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are searching for nothing. All links added are to Kalmyk language at any level, and they should be added there. If some wikipedias have a different article for Oirat they are added to Oirat language. Please don't make problems there they aren't. Hugo.arg (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making problems out of nothing. I'm stating that the MEANING of KALMYK on different wikipedias is obviously different, thus names are misguiding. Several articles in other wikis use "Kalmyk" to MEAN "Oirat" (i.e. a dialect group consisting of Xinjiang Oirat, Kalmyk "proper", Mongolian Oirat, and possibly Alasha, Deed Mongol and Darkhad), while some (including the article in English wikipedia) use Oirat as the generic term and Kalmyk as a term for a particular variety. Of course, it is the articles about the generic variety that have to related to each other, and on the other hand the articles on the particular dialect. You might want to argue that you want to rename some of the foreign language wikipedia articles, but you must do so on the respective discussion pages. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I see, most of Wikipedias use term Kalmyk language as a language of Kalmyks and Kalmyk Republic and only sometimes erroneously use synonym Oyrat. Maybe except Buryat, Kalmyk, and Breton wikipedias which talk widely about these Oirat languages. In my opinion, we should leave interwikis as they are now and also add Japanese and Chinese because they deal about language not the systematic and left article Oirat language without interwiki. Or maybe to add all interwikis to Oirat and left this without. You want to make a forced split but all other wikipedias except English have the only one article about Oirat-Kalmyk and so they all should be connected together. Hugo.arg (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see your point, but I dare not say inhowfar we may speak of error, and inhowfar we must speak of convention. Then, even if such a (useful) "forced split" might be less than ideal, I prefer it over your two suggestions. And the bots don't lead to useful results anyway: as you said, Kalmoukeg-oirateg is clearly the same as Oirat, but the bots make it Kalmyk. Maybe you might want to post some request for comment on the Work group central asia and WPLAN? If we come up opinion against opinion, third opinions might be useful. The Japanese article, while treating Kalmyk as the main variety, clearly deals with Oirat as such and should be grouped as such. The Chinese article is in the worst possible state and thus difficult to classify. It withholds all the important context and mixes up the two concepts. By the way, can you explain this maelstrom of bots? G Purevdorj (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot's now are "attacking" this page because I solved interwiki conflict with my User:Idioma-bot (semi-automatic) way. Now there is no interwiki conflict so bots add interwiki just by scanning interwikis. As in general rule, there should not be interwiki conflicts when one page links to the other page that links in the third at the first's wiki. I try to explain: for example Kalmyk language links to lt:Kalmukų kalba and that links to en:Oirat language, so then we have an interwiki conflict. If the want to solve it we should manage does lt:Kalmukų kalba belongs to Oirat or Kalmyk pages at enwiki? When we fix all the links in all connected interwikis, that conflict is solved and now interwikis could be added in automatic way. And so, thats why I offer to solve that problem now. Later, it could be more linked articles and more confusion. Sure, ideal way would be if all connected wikipedias would have distinct articles about Oirat and Kalmyk but now we have not the worst situation when only one wikipedia has distinct articles. Only need to decide which will have interwikis and which wouldn't. Hugo.arg (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First, would you be willing to accept my idea of a solution (articles ordered according to content irrespective of names, ie two groups of articles with eg Japanese having no article on Kalmyk, but only on Oirat)? If so, if I provide you with a list which article should belong where, could you automatically implement this for the other wikis? I did do so some time ago, but it was an awful lot of work and impossible to maintain. On the other hand, if it would be agreed upon here, would there be a way to barr bots from editing this page? G Purevdorj (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, make a list and I'll fix everything by my bot. After other bots should just follow existing interwiki system like if someone will create an article about Kalmyk in other wikipedia and will make a link here so bots will add it but nothing more. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Practically no info on the language
This article is a brilliant example of how linguistic articles on wiki have nothing on the subject matter. There is virtually nothing on phonology, morphology or syntax of Kalmyk. Congratulations people! 62.113.170.146 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar of Kalmyk
https://archive.org/details/GrammarOfTheMongol-kalmykLanguage

https://archive.org/details/grammatikamongo00bobrgoog

http://books.google.com/books?id=1y4OAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=1y4OAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

A.Bobrovnikov "A Grammar of Mongol-Kalmyk language" 1849, Kazan

http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/bobrovnikov.pdf

Грамматика монгольско-калмыцкого языка (1849)

https://archive.org/details/GrammarOfTheMongol-kalmykLanguage

Grammatika mongolʹskokalmyt͡skago i͡azyka (1849)

https://archive.org/details/grammatikamongo00bobrgoog

Grammatika kalmyt︠s︡kago i︠a︡zyka (1847)

https://archive.org/details/grammatikakalmyt00popo

06:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article name
Kalmyk and Oirat are the same language, which is basically conceded in the literature that makes any kind of argument based on linguistic data or intelligibility. Then, Kalmyk is almost never used as hyperonym for Oirat, while the reverse is quite common. By using the label "Kalmyk language", the consistent hierarchical structure of labeling gets destroyed. Cf. other articles such as Ordos Mongolian where the same principle of labeling is applied. It is true that claims are made in some of the literature to the effect that Kalmyk is a language, but this usually is done by ignoring other Oirat varieties. I don't think this move was a good idea at all, and I would propose it be undone, unless there are any more convincing arguments than the short move log summary that Ezhiki provided. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kalmyk Oirat. 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/20041224191946/http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm01hivern-primavera/internacional/kornou1_9.htm to http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm01hivern-primavera/internacional/kornou1_9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible illustration?
I can't read this language, maybe if this image can be used as an illustration on this article, feel free to use it :-) Syced (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ewoks speak the same language
I wonder if a note should be made about the Ewoks in Stars Wars speaking a language the film producers derived from Kalmyk Oirat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.0.98 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Differences in the IPA shown in "Alphabet matching table" and "Phonology"
There are some differences between the two sections in terms of what symbols they use. For instance: /ɮ and /ɮʲ/ are the sounds corresponding to Лл/Ll, but /l/ and /ȴ/ are used to denote the sounds in the consonant table. They are written on the lateral row, but this feels like an unclear way to denote them. Additionally Бб/Bb is represented as /p/, /pʲ/ in IPA for the alphabet matching table, but in the consonant table for phonology, /b/ is shown as a voiced plosive.

VegBerg (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Name of the language
The actual name of the language is хальмг келн (khal'mg keln). We do not say хальмг өөрдин келн. You should rename the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.232.205 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Todo Bichig Latin.png

Orphaned references in Kalmyk Oirat
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kalmyk Oirat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ethnologue": From Laz language:  From ISO 639-3: Ethnologue report for ISO 639 code: zho on ethnologue.com From Kalmyks: Kalmyk-Oirat, in Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International From Abkhaz language:  From Nenets languages:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)