Talk:Suret language

Revert
I've had to revert this article a number of times because of edits made from a political standpoint. This is an article about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, not any other language. This is the Neo-Aramaic of Christians (mostly Church of the East) originally from Urmia and eastern Turkey. The language is heavily influenced by Classical Syriac, which is the language of liturgy and some literature in the Church of the East. This article is not supposed to refer to all Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken by Christians and the classical language but just to this distinct group of modern dialects. These dialects are most often represented by General Urmian and the Iraqi Koine. The editor who has been reverting my changes is openly writing from an Assyrian nationalist point of view, which is fine as long as it does not interfere with the overall neutrality of the article. One simple and clear measure of this is the convention that infoboxes for Afro-Asiatic languages are yellow in colour. This editor keeps turning the box white for some reason. Unless the editor can give some rational defence for their actions, they should be persuaded to stop turning articles into their little soapbox. Gareth Hughes 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who edited
Well i am an Assyrian and I know who and who does not speak my language..We assyrians nowadays stand wihtout a country and we are 90 of 100% nationalists..We are about 4-4.5million assyrian speakers and you were writing we were about 210.000 whis is a lie..There are 3 modern Assyrian (Aramean) dialects..Chaldean influed with more arabian words..Suryoyo spoken by the west Assyrians but they refer to call themselves syriacs nowadays and the original Assyrian people which are we.. You made our Assyrian language look like its all Aramean..Dont forget only our church language is Aramean (Assyrian) call it whatever you want but we Assyrians call it Assyrian so I wont accept that strangers from another nation will destroy that for our little and dieing nation..Assyrian neo aramaic it shouldnt be called that..Its only called Assyrian Neo Aramaic on the internet because no Assyrian doesnt know what that is...We know what we talk and what we are fighting for..So please dont edit my changes Garzo..Kind Regards / Youhanna Warda.. Assyria 90 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Youhanna, thank you for writing, and for introducing yourself. I am a student of Aramaic, and have just returned from a language field trip in eastern Turkey. I have great sympathy for the cause Aramaic-speaking Christians throughout the area. I know some call themselves Suryoye and others Assyrian, but are very much in similar situations. I have heard plenty of firsthand evidence of Saypa/Sayfo to know what horrors were committed against the people. However, I do have a problem with the politicization of linguistic and historic facts. Assyrian nationalists are actually doing their cause a disservice through such actions: no-one is taking the heartfelt rhetoric seriously, and there are issues to be taken seriously here. There is a distinct difference between the liturgical language of the Church of the East and the colloquial language that used to be spoken in the broad area from Mosul to Urmia. Accurate evidence, from linguists working in the field, is that there are around 210,000 fluent speakers of the colloquial language. This does not include the many who speak the liturgical language, or those who speak the dialects centred on Alqosh (that have had a substantially different history, although similar to the Ashiret dialects), or those dialects further afield. I agree that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic isn't a perfect term, but it is accurate. Labelling a whole raft of languages and dialects with very different origins and histories as Assyrian actually makes the issue less clear. I am an Aramaic linguist who has been writing articles for Wikipedia which give a presence to Assyrian/Aramaean/Syriac language. I am qualified and able to make edits here. It is inappropriate of you to judge anyone as incapable of doing so. However, you may be considered to be a bad editor by the community if you continue to make edits that are politically motivated and unencyclopaedic. Your latest brace of edits (diff) readjusted the number of speakers to an unfeasible 4.5 million again, broadened out the geographic distribution and totally removed the lead paragraph which defines what the article is about. You removed also the only referrence in the article, and you keep replacing the Slovak interlanguage link with one that doesn't work. You have heard who I am, and you have heard the catalogue of reasoned complaints about your edits to this article. Can you expalin what you these edits are about? Gareth Hughes 20:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Garzo..I am from south east Turkey (Nort of Assyria)..I was born in Turabdin in Midyat i think you were there when you mean east Turkey..I made this edits because I dont want other nations to see our language is its only here because we are Christians..You make it very Christiand and so on.I am an Christen Orthodox and yes I do belive in God etc..I can read and speak Aramaic..In the Orthodox Church we have studens who can study Aramaic (Assyrian) in our churches and I am one of them.The speakers of Assyrian are estimated to 4.5 million speakers if you disagree just check new fact..I think you were with Suryoye in Turkey.These are also Assyrians but nowadays some of them declare themselves as "Syriacs" and "Aramean"..Soo these changes ive made are because Assyrians does NOT want to see their language in only a Christian view..We are almost all nationalists so we want it from a nationalist view..If you want to do a article about the Assyrian language spoken in Church your welcome but the Assyrian language is made for our people and not our church..Our church has its own language..SOo if you got anymore questions ask me or add me at msn..!!??Assyria 90 16:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Youhanna, I know Midyat very well, and I have also spent time researching further east (around Shirnak and Hakkari). I think you misunderstand the subject of this article. There is another article titled Assyrian language, which points readers to more specific articles about the dialects. This article is about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic because it is different from other dialects that might be grouped together as Assyrian. There may be 4.5 millon speakers of Assyrian if you define that broadly enough, but there certainly are not that many speakers of this dialect. My writing comes from scientific study of the numerous dialects of Aramaic, both classical and modern, which have been backed up by field work. I would still like to see some facts to back up your claims. Gareth Hughes 14:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what facts you want and I will get them. Assyria 90 12:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Start with 3.5 million: let's have the demographic break down: where do they live and exactly what dialects do they speak? Have fun trawling round AINA! Gareth Hughes 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Here you got your sorces there are a lot more but these are enough for now: http://www.aina.org/news/20040620144321.htm http://www.assyriannation.com/history/History.htm http://www.assyrianvote.com/vote/assyrian911.htm

Well I am an Assyrian myself so i can explain the dialects myself theres no need for sorces..We Assyrians are grouped in three stocks..First of all those who call themselves Assyrians..They speak east Assyrian also called ashori or atoraya (atori) then we have the Chaldeans who speak east Assyrian but its more influenced with Arabic and the last dialect is west Assyrians and those who speak it are the nowadays Suryoye. The churches and the dialects have crushed us as a nation..I live in Sweden for now and here we are about 90 000 Assyrians (Assyrians.Suryoye.Chaldeans) together.. In the US we are estimated to a 400.000-600.000 Assyrians and only in Chicago there are 90 000 Assyrians.For some 10 years ago we were about 2.5 million Assyrians in Iraq but today there are only 1.000.000 - 1.500.000 Assyrians left in Iraq.We also have about 700.000 Assyrians in Syria.The rest of the Assyrians are in the west world... And Gareth..I dont travel around AINA I already know everything cause ive been studding this too long and I know a lot about our Assyrian party s since my cousin started one of the most known Assyrian and Syriac party..Sargon 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Assyria 90

"Sureth"
Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is not synonymous with "Sureth", which is a term not in common usage in English. Common English usage is the primary driver for what we call things in English. From the bibliography, it seems that the editor is using "Sureth" as a synonym for "Syriac". His references belong there and not here. (Taivo (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Nomenclature
Are we not talking about the language generally known as either 'Neo-Syriac' or 'Modern Syriac'? R. Macuch's important article 'Assyrians in Iran' in Encyclopedia Iranica (a work of reference that sets standards of elegance, accuracy and objectivity that Wikipedia is unlikely ever to meet) uses the term 'Neo-Syriac'; while Sebastian Brock prefers the term Modern Syriac. Is there some political correctness objection to making it clear that 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic' is basically the successor of Classical Syriac? I have studied the Church of the East for several decades, but have never come across the term 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic' in any serious work of scholarship. I realise that the Assyrians are constantly rewriting their history, and I'm not trying to stop Assyrian nationalists from continuing to call Modern Syriac whatever they like; but I do object to their foisting their absurd claims on the rest of us by using Wikipedia as a vehicle for nationalist propaganda. 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic' is a fraudulent (or at the very least, tendentious) term, and as far as I am aware it is used mainly by Assyrian nationalists. Most other people call it Syriac. I would therefore like to propose that this article is renamed 'Modern Syriac', so that ordinary mortals can understand what it is talking about.

Djwilms (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of linguistic literature in English, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is more common. "Syriac" is reserved, as you note, for the medieval language of the Church of the East.  But the medieval language evolved into several distinct dialects of Neo-Aramaic, all of which could conceivable be called "Neo-Syriac"--Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic being the two principal ones.  Each of these varieties has a distinct ISO 639-3 code.  To single out one of these varieties of Neo-Aramaic as the "true" successor to Syriac would be pushing a single POV.  The whole field of nomenclature for the various Neo-Aramaic varieties is problematic anyway.  Scholars who use "Neo-Syriac" are generally lumping two or more Neo-Aramaic varieties together, something which Wikipedia is not doing since Wikipedia generally follows the divisions of ISO 639-3.  --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's not logical. Classical Syriac is a major dialect of Aramaic.  The dialects presently spoken by Assyrians and Chaldeans (though this is a problematic distinction) are based respectively on the Urmia and Alqosh varieties of Syriac, which derive directly from Classical Syriac, though with a certain amount of self-conscious classicising.  The term 'Aramaic' has no point, as we are already agreed that Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic.  Technically, it would be better to call them Assyrian Neo-Syriac and Chaldean Neo-Syriac, though these terms are so ugly that Modern Syriac is better.  I also see no reason to distinguish between the Assyrian and Chaldean variants of Modern Syriac.  They are no more significant than dialectal differences between, say, London and Yorkshire English.  However, I see that the pass has already been sold as far as ISO codes are concerned, so I shan't push this further until I discover what authority, if any, ISO codes have.


 * Djwilms (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond the ISO 639-3 codes, other sources distinguish between Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. For example, Edward Y. Odisho, 1988, The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic), Harrassowitz; and Solomon I. Sara, 1974, A Description of Modern Chaldean, Mouton.  Linguasphere (David Dalby, 1999/2000, The Linguasphere Register, The Linguasphere Observatory) also distinguishes between the aisor (Assyrian) and kald-oyo (Chaldean) speech varieties.  --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that interesting information. I shall not attempt to swim single-handedly against the tide.  On a related point, though, I note that this article claims that Assyrians and Chaldeans find it difficult to understand each other's dialect, while the article Chaldean Neo-Aramaic says that both the Alqosh and Urmia dialects are 'very close', implying that each can be readily understood by speakers of the other dialect.  One or other statement will need to be modified.  I read Classical Syriac, but find both modern dialects very hard going, so I'm scarcely in a position to judge.  What would you say is the truth?


 * Djwilms (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Very close" and "difficult to understand" are not necessarily mutually exclusive descriptions. English and Scots are very, very difficult to understand, but from a historical perspective they are still very close (closer than English and Latin, for example).  The literature I've read on Neo-Aramaic makes the two varieties sound like they are just on the cusp of being two different, mutually unintelligible languages, but with practice one can understand both.  Russian and Ukrainian, English and Scots, Spanish and Portuguese--all these sound (impresionistically) like the situation between Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic.  But I don't speak either of the Neo-Aramaic varieties, so I can't say for certain.  --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

/* Requested move */
Assyrian language → Assyrian Neo-Aramaic — This article should never have been moved from Assyrian Neo-Aramaic in the first place without consensus. "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" is the most commonly used name in English for this language. "Assyrian language" most commonly refers to the dialect of Akkadian spoken in ancient Assyria. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

of course, this was an invalid copy-paste move by, an account apparently created just for this purpose. Should have been reverted on sight. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Affricates
What is the phonemic status of the affricates ? If they are merely regional realizations of, then they are not phonemes and therefore should not be present in the table. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer is that they are phonemes - see User_talk:Meganesia. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Population
Ethnologue only justifies about 80k speakers. The rest of the supposed 230k is never cited: no dates, no location. Estimates on Assyrian have dropped sharply since Ethn. started collecting its data (probably even more so in the diaspora), so without better info, we can't in good conscience repeat their total. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quizzaciously
Don't add this word because it's trending! That's forced usage. --2.245.169.179 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sentence order
The section on Script begins: "The original Mesopotamian writing system (believed to be the world's oldest) was derived around 3600 BC from this method [note: no method was specified up to this point] of keeping accounts. By the end of the 4th millennium BC, the Mesopotamians were using a triangular-shaped stylus pressed into soft clay to record numbers." I believe the intent is to have the sentences the other way around: "By the end of the 4th millennium BC, the Mesopotamians were using a triangular-shaped stylus pressed into soft clay to record numbers. The original Mesopotamian writing system (believed to be the world's oldest) was derived around 3600 BC from this method of keeping accounts." Or it could be done (less elegantly) with a colon. 197.88.91.246 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. 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/20081202005322/http://www.lightofword.org/aramaic/pdf/Introduction.pdf to http://www.lightofword.org/aramaic/pdf/Introduction.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717071922/http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf to http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.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) 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Arabic's relevance to Assyrian/Syriac
An article about one language does not need to discuss the aspects of another unrelated one. Since removing sources was cited as an argument against the removal, someone could cite anything unrelated and post it from cheesecake to birds.

Since the part I removed was false information, this is in even less need to be discussed.

From that citation, "Baghdadi Gelet Arabic, which is considered the standard Baghdadi Arabic, shares many features with Gulf Arabic and is of Bedouin provenance". I will be adding this to the Iraqi Arabic page before clear misinformation is added there too if it isn't already.

”Lišanna Ashuraya”?
There is very many wrong things about this article. To start with ”Assyrian Neo-Aramaic”, that is not the name of the language, the name is Aramaic, or ”Neo-Aramaic”, but not ”Assyrian”, I would recommend not use that term since the language of the ancinent Assyrians was Akkadian (𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑). The language that ’Assyrians’ speak today is Aramaic, it cannot be named, or even include ”Assyrian”. Because this dialect is the same as Eastern Aramaic, why change it’s original name to ”Assyrian”? That is completely unnecessary! It’s like America would start having Aramaic as their official, and first language, let’s say they speak Western Aramaic, would they be calling it “American Neo-Aramaic”? No, that is to erase history, and people’s original language!

Next thing is the “Lišanna Athuraya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ), and “Lišanna Ashuraya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܫܘܪܝܐ). “Ashuraya/Ashuroyo” has never even existed in the Aramaic language, this is just a taken word from Akkadian “Ašurayu”, meaning the people Assyrians, the Assyrians never had a language, they spoke Akkadian, and today ‘Assyrians’ speak Aramaic, so I see no point in “Lišanna Ashuraya”, “Lišanna, Athuraya”. You should change this to “Lišanna Aramaya” (ܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ), since the language is Aramaic. Shabo.Hanna.Izgin (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, !

I've reverted your edits on several grounds:

1) Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic are large language families with many dialects (often considered separate languages). You'll note that those articles already exist and describe dialects related to--but distinct from--Assyrian.

2) "Assyrian" is the most common name for the language in everyday English parlance. "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" is the most common linguistic designation (with its own ISO 639-3 code, "aii"). "Modern Assyrian" is a very common appellation used by Assyriologists (whose "Assyrian" usually refers to "Assyrian Akkadian" in the same way a classicist's "Greek" would refer to "Ancient Greek" and not "Modern Greek").

3) "Lishana Athuraya/Ashuraya" are native names for the language that are actually in use. We can and should note for how long these names have existed in continuity, but to remove them entirely would be prescriptivist, not descriptivist.

4) It is possible for two or more different languages to have the same name when describing the same people (cf. Scottish language).

5) I see that you're a fairly new editor; please read through WP:POV.

Cheers! --334a (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

lešānā Sūryāyā / Ārāmāyā*
why dis you revert my edits? the academical term for the language is Aramaic, the dialect Eastern Neo-Aramaic, I even provided sources Johannesgabrielsson (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED: After reading through the arguments I determine that there is a weak consensus to keep the article at the current title. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Suret language → Assyrian Neo-Aramaic – The ISO standard name is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Almost every source (including one that purports to support the new name) calls the language it as well. moved the article without any discussion, and I honestly think it should be moved back unless evidence is presented that a majority of speakers call it Suret as well. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * / &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The weak consensus has been to generally keep stuff with the Assyrian label (like Assyrian people which covers Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Arameans) with several notes explaining the deal there. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's not the scope of this article.
 * According to Salminen (2010), Suret is the language, and was divided by SIL on non-linguistic grounds into Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. ISO recognizes this, and has created the code [syr] to unite the two. This article covers both varieties.
 * When a language is spoken by two communities, it is often problematic to use the name of one of them as if the other didn't exist. That isn't a problem with English, for example, because there's no quarrel with the history, but it would be upsetting to a lot of people to call Shtokavian Croatian "Serbian", or Modern Standard Hindi "Urdu" (even though it is Urdu). I suspect that calling Chaldean "Assyrian" might be similarly problematic.
 * "Three North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic languages were traditionally spoken in Turkey and across the border further into the Middle East, namely Suret (divided by SIL on non-linguistic grounds into Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic), Hértevin (reportedly quite different from Suret) and Lishan Didan (a Jewish Aramaic language also linguistically separate), all of them now largely in diaspora. Furthermore, an outlying dialect of Suret was created in Georgia because of the migration of the entire Bohtan Neo-Aramaic community from Turkey."
 * — kwami (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @kwami: You just described the scope of the Syriac language (ISO code: syr) and Northeastern Neo-Aramaic articles.
 * No, Syriac is ISO code [syc]; Suret is [syr]. The scope of Syriac is broader: it's multiple languages, whereas Suret is a single language.
 * As long as people understand that the Chaldean dialect is included even though it's not called "Assyrian", then I don't have much objection to moving back to the old name. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You might like to update ISO 639:syr/ISO 639 macrolanguage then. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kwamikagami And, under your opinions, what the aii referes to? A hoax code? syc is called "Classical Syriac" on the SIL's part, and syr is a macrolanguage code afaik. I wonder why Chaldean Neo-Aramaic language also redirects to this article, are both member languages same? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * [aii] is for "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic", just as they say. That is, it's for one sociolect of the language covered by this article: Suret as spoken by members of the Assyrian church. Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is the other: Suret as spoken by members of the Chaldean church, which is why it directs here. Giving them separate ISO codes would be like having separate ISO codes for Protestant English and Catholic English. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, or possibly move to Neo-Syriac if there was a strong desire to cover both varieties and if there's really a fear that Chaldean dialect speakers would disapprove of the current title (Which doesn't seem established at all). Google searches for Neo-Syriac and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic show very few sources using Suret.  SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: 'Neo-Syriac' would make this article consistent with Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, where we list 'Assyrian Neo-Aramaic' as just one dialect of Neo-Syriac. So unless we change the wording of that article to match this one, that would suggest 'Neo-Syriac' might be best. But is the scope of 'Neo-Syriac' really as narrow as we claim in that article? — kwami (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. merged the article Chaldean Neo-Aramaic in April and left a comment explaining why. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The native name of the dialects of Northeastern Neo-Aramaic spoken by Christians (the subject of the article) is Suret or Sureth depending on dialect, but both Chaldeans and Assyrians use both pronunciation. This is because dialects are geographically based not determined by religious affiliation. Splitting these articles is like trying to write separate articles on Catholic and Protestant German. Although "Assyrian" may be somewhat more recognizable, I do oppose the proposed move as it is more clear that "Suret" includes all NENA varieties spoken by Christians and it avoids the POV implication that all Christian NENA speakers are Assyrians. On Google Scholar, once you include both Suret and Sureth spellings, there isn't too much difference between Suret+Sureth and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Additionally, I oppose neo-Syriac as it includes Turoyo, which is not a NENA dialect and is outside the scope of this article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: We could always use the paraphrase "Assyrian–Chaldean Neo-Aramaic". That would be unambiguous, though clumsy. — kwami (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "Christian Neo-Aramaic" instead. There are some scholarly sources which use that term for that reason. For me, the important part of the title is the "Neo-Aramaic" bit. I would, however, not like to see "Assyrian–Chaldean Neo-Aramaic" being the title. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So the speakers of Turoyo, Bohtan and Suryoyo aren't Christian? Let's not mix up language and religion. — kwami (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, there are other Christian neo-Aramaic languages besides Suret (Bohtan is a NENA dialect and is covered by this article, while Suryoyo = Turoyo and Western Neo-Aramaic are not.) I'm not strongly opposed to "Assyrian neo-Aramaic" if other editors think it's the best title. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would support a move to Sureth. The exact phrase "Suret language" is unused. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We typically tag "language" to the titles of language articles so that it's clear what the scope of the article is. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at Latin, Arabic, Inuktitut or Sanskrit. —Srnec (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming (under the proposed schema), but support splitting contents to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and probably this article should rename to Syriac language s, that said, syr is a macrolanguage, and how we process the content schemes of other macrolanguages should also apply here per WP:IAR. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we merged this article into the Syriac languages article, then we'd have to create a new article for this language, and we'd be back where we started. And there's no such thing as a "macro-language". That's just bureaucratic jargon for ISO -- it's not a coherent linguistic concept. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. The above discussion is veering into OR.  We can't decide among ourselves what the language ought to be called.  I find 1 hit on GScholar for "suret language" and 3 hits for "sureth language" (there are lots of hits for "suret" and "sureth" but these don't refer to languages).  I find 342 hits for "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" and 82 hits for "Chaldean Neo-Aramaic".  It seems to be accepted that these refer to the same language, in which case Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the common name for that language, and the article should be at that name with an explanation of the position.  If that's wrong, and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic are actually different languages, the merge should be reversed.
 * The argument that SIL have a code "syr" to cover both does not take matters forward since SIL give the reference name as Syriac and not Suret. They give "syc" the reference name Classical Syriac.  I doubt that terminology enjoys much support, and it seems to me that it sows confusion, but in any case it can't support the current title. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per Kwami and Buidhe. The proposed title does not appear to accurately describe the scope of this article as it stands. A split may be called for, but that should be discussed separately. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Suret" language
As someone of Assyrian ancestry, I wasn't too happy to see the page formerly called "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" renamed "Suret Language." Whether that is a historically or linguistically accurate name or not, it's misleading to a native English speaker, because to my knowledge no one in the English-speaking world short of scholars call it by that name when speaking English. Its use would be sort of like using "Deutsch" and "Français" to describe German and French within English sentences. It reads as wrong. My concern is that the use of the word "Suret" has the effect of further obscuring the identity of a broad, multicentric community of people who are already mostly invisible in the modern world.

I would ask that the Wikipedia crew reconsider this renaming. "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic Languages" seems to me to be no more or less accurate than Suret, and has the effect of clearly identifying this as the language spoken by modern communities who identify as Assyrian. That's a plus. Please consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.175.184 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Name in English
Why is this language called Suret? This is not practical, as there is an English name for it, just as Armenian language is not called Hayeren, Hebrew language is not Ivrith. Another nuance, the vast majority of Assyrians call this language Lishana Ashuraya (Ashurith). I don't know when this edit was made, but for Assyrians outside of the U.S., no such term as "Suret" is known. Diklath (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)