Talk:Mordvinic languages

Moksha language and Erzya language are separate literary languages, that's why the plural form Mordvin languages has been used.--Termer (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology translation
If anybody could help out with the Russian spelling of the official term "Mordivskie yazyki", that would be great--Termer (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mordivskije jazuki in latinized form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not an official term in Russian but just a name for languages "subgroup" always used in plural 2 million returns in yandex.ru. Russian spelling is Мордо́вские языки́: Мокша́нский язы́к and Эрзя́нский язы́к e.g. Грамматика мордовских (мокшанского и эрзянского) языков, Саранск, 1962 Previuosly both in the form Мокша́-Мордо́вский язы́к and Э́рзя-Мордо́вский язы́к

Merger
If somebody is really (not jokingly) intends to merge Mokshan and Erzyan languages, pls explain why have not be merged yet Khanty language and Mansi language to Yugra. Why not to merge Karachai and Circassian to Karachaycircassians, Kabardins and Balkars to Kabardinbalkars? Last time this official initiative merging Erzya and Moksha into mystic Mordvin failed in 1970 and somebody used the term "languacide". This tag on merging is languacide too. --Numulunj pilgae 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of separation
If the Erzya language was made in 1922, then how come the first extensive publication in Erzya was publishe in 1821, namely the Gospel. The remainder of the New Testament was published in 1827. The first Grammar of of Moksha was published in 1838 by Ornitov in Cyrillics, and the first grammar of Erzya was published in 1838-39 by Gabelentz in the Latin alphabet, but based on the New Testament texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.149.193 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume this means the dates of 1922 and 23 refer to standardization. Before that, writings would still have been based on either variety or the other, but considered to be simply in the "Mordvin language". (I'm not clear on when Erzya and Moksha would have split, but it's probably before first written texts.) -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

merge proposal
I do not understand why would you suggest merging an article about a branch of a language family with an article about an administrative unit. Please see the Ethnologue, Languages of the World Language Family Trees, Uralic FFI. --Termer (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lenguas mordvínicas.png

About the proposed merge with Finnic
The entire reason for this merge seems to be one article (Piispanen, Peter S. (2016) "Statistical Dating of Finno-Mordvinic Languages through Comparative Linguistics and Sound Laws"), which, as far as I can tell, states nothing of the sort. The article places the split of Finnic and Saamic closer together than the split of Finnic and Mordvinic, so merging this page with the Finnic page would be inaccurate even on the basis of the article. 80.114.143.57 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. The whole thing is based on a misreading of Piispanen (2016), who only uses Moksha data to represent Mordvinic. This doesn't invalidate the consensus about grouping Moksha and Erzya together as Mordvin(ic) languages. I'll restore the last good version of the lede. Piispanen (2016) can be readded in "Classification" in the discussion of the wider connections of Mordvinic within Uralic.–Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please kindly comment before removing the template what is not clear about DNA studies or Piispainen's work listing number of scholars discussing relation of Moksha language with Saami and Finnish without mentioning Erzya. Austronesier agrees with what? Why the term is obsolete? Because it has been based on the Soviet period artificially constructed nation (see the articleMordvins first) Do you have different DNA results confirming the existing Mordvinic unity?--Vaultralph1 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP comment, which should be obvious from the order of comments. The merge proposal is based on a blatant misreading of Piispanen (2016). No scholar of Uralic languages (including Piispanen) rejects the Mordvinic branch of Uralic as a linguistic subgroup, except maybe for some amateurs promoting obscure fringe proposals (which I haven't seen except here in WP). DNA is irrelevant here. And the merge prposal hasn't be substantiated until now, so it's overdue to remove it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is likely block evasion from . TylerBurden (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)