Talk:Luwian language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Languages | (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
| WikiProject Ancient Near East | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Comments
why does the article say that Luvian was spoken in Arzawa, which was in the far west, when the map shows the Luvian area as in the east?Bbpowell 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC){
[edit] Influence on Semitic?
Where is the evidence that Hittite and Luwian "moved" south to the Middle East and influenced Semitic tongues? Is this some sort of a confusion with Phillistines(Greeks) ?
- No evidence at all, it is clear that the author does not have a clue what (s)he is talking about. There were Neo-Hittite kingdoms in northern Syria during the first millennium BC using the Luwian language in inscriptions, but the presence of Luwians among the Sea people/Philistines are pure guesswork. Any linguistic influence on the Semitic tongues from Luwian is strictly confined to loan-words.--JFK 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cut from the article
This is the highly disputed part of the article cut and pasted. Before a reference can be presented who these academic specialists are this hypothesis does not belong in the main article. It is certainly not the scholar Melchert in Anatolian languages nor his colleagues Meid, Neu Otten or Puhvel. The text:
Luwian (and Hittite) groups are now believed by most academic specialists to have moved south into Amurru, Aram Naharaim, Canaan and the Hejaz (modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia) after ca. the 14th century BC, and to have had an influence on the various West Semitic languages that its speakers came into contact with (Amorite dialects and especially Hebrew). --JFK 23:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the Luwian-speaking movement from Lycia followed the South Anatolian coastline apparently after the Hittites, which is associated with the Sea Peoples activity, and they did get as far as Syria, but I never heard of them getting to Saudi Arabia...! Pulling out that OR was a good call... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was George E. Mendenhall from the University of Michigan. He ascribed originally Luwian names to Midianite figures reported in the Old Testament, some of whom (Moses' father-in-law Jethro for example) were associated with the Hejaz. --Fire Star 04:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boustrephedon, etc
Boustrephedon writing does not apply to Cuneiform Luwian, and so the discussion on it shouldn't go on in this article. I've moved that discussion (and the paragraph which sparked it) over to Hieroglyphic Luwian. Enjoy! - Zimriel 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian are language varieties which should be discussed at Luwian language; directionality and other features of the writing system should be discussed at Anatolian hieroglyph. Evertype 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split "Luwians"
Propose splitting Luwian land and people from the language article. Categorystuff (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who are you calling "Luwians"? Do you have such a great deal of material on "Luwians" that it would unbalance the present article? Why don't you simply begin by editing it in a section here and see how much you've got.--Wetman (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- In a way, what is the difference how much material is found on the Luvians? The two topics are logically distinct. Language articles are about the range, speakers, phonology etc of the language. The EB always splits the two. If we read about the English we aren't interested in the phonology of English and if we want to know something about English phonology we really don't care at all who is speaking it. It might be spoken in inner Mongolia (and probably is). So even if there is a small amount of material Luvians can well be a separate article. Redirecting Luvians to here blocks us from working on it. On the other hard no such article exists and is not going to exist unless someone does the work. At this point "splitting" means unredirecting "Luvians" and letting it be a red link. I'm in favor of that because it encourages someone to do the article. If I were writing an article on Luvians I would just unredirect the word and think nothing of it. There is nothing to split so far. Tempest in a teapot. If anyone is looking for encouragement, I say, go ahead, "split" it. First you write the article in Word - check it - make sure it has all the criteria for an article - then create a new article on Wikipedia and lastly take out the redirect. Make sure there are links in Luvians to Luvian and vice versa. By the way who ARE we calling Luvians is a moot point. There are quite a few Luvian theories.Dave (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support split, Dave covered the reasons why. Imagine having Ancient Greece information within the Ancient Greek language article. Fuzzibloke (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article: Syro-Hittite states
Consideration should also be given to relevance and appropriate placement (inclusion/exclusion) of material in the article Syro-Hittite states, which deals with the Neo-Hittite period (post-1180 RCE and which links to the current article This may help to resolve some of the somewhat contentious points raised in the discussion above. Geoff Powers (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
