Talk:Vedda language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Romanyarrowsmith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Creole?
Recent edits call Vedda a creole language. Is there a source for this claim? Ethnologue at least considers Vedda an Indic language closely related to (but distinct from) Sinhala and Divehi, not a creole. +Angr 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All based on journal articles and academic publications. Ethnologue entry is based on previous studies by Wilhem Geiger (1935) who also contradicted himself by saying that it is reflexfied aboriginal language (cited in the article). The only two linguists to really study the language are two Sri Lankan based professors (both linguists) . Sugathapala de Silva (1964) and K. N. O Dharmadasa (1990). Their studies are the latest in chronology of published literature and have been used by George Van Driem (2002) in his monumental work on Himalayan languages. So I have pointed out both the claims and the contradictions in claim one itself all cite. Taprobanus (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just going to start a discussion on this, when I saw yours. How can Vedda be classified as a creol, and Malayalam as an independant language? The Tamil editors who have written this article have really twisted the available studies on Vedda language. The reader is left confused. SriSuren (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How many user names do you have? Are you the same person as Kanatonian and Sudharsansn ?SriSuren (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ethnic origin, sexual orientation, color of skin, length of middle finger of editors may be important to some but we don’t have any policies regarding that in Wikipedia. But the pertinent question is have you read Sugathapala de Silva and K. N. O Dharmadasa's work on Vedda language? I know it may be difficult to get this but any good University from where ever you comefrom should have this,
 * Then you have to contend with Sugathapala de Silva's work and Van Driem all are very late compared to the studies done in 1935 by Wilhem Geiger that called Vedda language a dialect of Sinhalese.Kanatonian (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have to contend with Sugathapala de Silva's work and Van Driem all are very late compared to the studies done in 1935 by Wilhem Geiger that called Vedda language a dialect of Sinhalese.Kanatonian (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Contested section

 * History

of the above referenced sections which are falsified Kanatonian (talk)


 * Okay: you write "18,000 BCE: First inhabitants of Ceylon, presumed ancestors of the Vedda". Yet the source you provide says that there were inhabitants at least 125,000 BCE, and perhaps 1M. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited article says very clearly " These human remains have been subjected to detailed physical anthropological study and it has been affirmed that the genetic continuum from at least as early as 18,000 BP at Batadomba-lena to Beli-lena at 16,000 BP to Bellan-bandi Palassa at 6,500 BP to the recent Vaddha aboriginal population is remarkably pronounced (ibid:486-9; Kennedy et al. 1987; Hawkey 1998; Kennedy 2000; the earlier material from Fa Hien-lena is too fragmentary for such comparative study)". The article is based on another study which is also cited in the article. It would be irresponsible to claim that Vedda's ancestors can be found as early as 125,000. Kanatonian (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's not what you said, is it?


 * Well I beg to differ, what I initially wrote was this which said Introduction of the Parent stock of Vedda languages but it was your subsequant edit that changed my sentence into First inhabitants of Ceylon, presumed ancestors of the Vedda. The new citation is more appropriate for what I wrote than what you had subsequently changed the sntence into. My mistake was to leave your edit alone instead of reverting it back to what I had initially wrote but change the time line from 28,000 to 18,000. There is no corelation between first humans in Sri Lanka and Veddas except 18,000 years ago per the citation. Kanatonian (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the following modification to your edit. Presumed ancestors of Vedda - 18000 BCE Kanatonian (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you wrote "Introduction of the Parent stock of Vedda languages", which is baloney. I have no problem with saying that the genetic lineage of the Vedda can be traced back that far, assuming the source is a RS. But that is not evidence for language. — kwami (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is no evidence for a language that far back, that's why I left your edit version alone but you were wrong too, to write that First inhabitants of Ceylon, presumed ancestors of the Vedda - 28000 BCE, you wrote that without any RS sources to back it up as well. Hence I proposed Presumed ancestors of Veddas - 18000 BCE. You seem to agree that you are OK with it as long as the citation is RS ? The cited link was authored by a self published anthropologist, hence qualifies under WP:RSKanatonian (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And the last one you have is "Decline of Vedda Creole: 2000". You source that to van Driem, and that ref also fails. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again I beg to differ on page 230 of Van Driem book says Since the Vedda language is now probably extinct, it should be possible to collate and analyze all that was ever recorded about the language, but it is not clear whether it is totally extinct or some vestige of it thereof still remains. and the book was published in 2001. Kanatonian (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest Decline or extinction of Vedda language ~ 2000 CE Kanatonian (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But you do not have a source for that date. Making stuff up fails under WP:OR. — kwami (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The source is very clear it says Since the Vedda language is now probably extinct, so what is now, 18000 BCE or the year the book was published? I think this argument is argument sake and wasting everyones time including yours. But if you are that particular, just take the year off the sentence and leave it to the poor readers to figure out as to when it went out of usage or I can find many other RS sources to pick a date of extinction. Kanatonian (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Extinction or Decline time line
The following three books just like Van Driem's book also state with some ambiguity about the state of Vedda language. They are


 * 1) Encyclopedia Of The World's Endangered Languages By Christopher Moseley writes that it is not sure if there are any surviving speakers of Vedda language left,  published in 2007


 * 1) Language in South Asia By Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, S. N. Sridhar says Vedda language is in serious danger of extinction  published in 2007


 * 1) Languages in Contact by Dicky Gilbers, John A. Nerbonne, J. Schaeken says Vedda language is almost certain to be extinct – published in in 2000

so what is clear is that the language is in decline not sure whether it is extinct or not and the time line is approximately ~ 2000 sh because non of the books state a date. Kanatonian (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Another option
Remove the section on time line off the article, if any serious reader wants to read about subject then they will read it in full, get the whole picture and do further research. Most others who come here for curiosity will just read the summary and move on and the time line may or may not give them any further understanding about this language. Kanatonian (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)