Talk:Indo-Aryan languages

Mitanni

It seems strange that Mitanni language would be Indo-European if its speakers are hurrian?

no, the Mitanni nobility were indo-aryan, ruling over a hurrian population. there was some confusion as to which language should be labeled "mitanni", but the term generally refers to the upper-class indo-aryan language now. see Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni dab (ᛏ) 07:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wrong numbers

@Kautilya3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages

• The largest in terms of native speakers are Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu, about 329 million),[2] Bengali (about 200 million), Punjabi (about 100 million),[3] Marathi (about 70 million), Gujarati (about 50 million), Bhojpuri (about 40 million), Awadhi (about 38 million), Maithili (about 30 million), Odia (about 30 million), Sindhi (about 26 million), Braj Bhasha (about 21 million), Rajasthani (about 20 million), Saraiki (about 20 million), Chhattisgarhi (about 18 million), Nepali (about 16 million), Sinhala (about 15 miilion), Assamese (about 15 million), Haryanvi (about 13 million), Kannauji (about 9 million), Bagheli (about 8 million), Kashmiri (about 6 million), Dogri (about 4 million), and Bundeli (about 3 million), Garhwali (about 3 million), Kumaoni (about 2 million), with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million.

• i was understand in wikipedia 900 = 1086!

329+ 200+100+ 70+ 50+40 +38 +30+ 30+ 26+21+ 20+ 20+ 18 + 16 + 15+ 15 + 13 + 9+ 8 + 6 + 4+ 3+3+ 2 million=1086 million, with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million.

Vowels

Can someone clear up the 'Vowels' chart? The Nepali edit hasn't been integrated properly & I don't know how to fix it. Catenworg (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It is Indic not Indo-Aryan

I am not sure how such a colossal error got propagated through Wikipedia like this, but the language family being referred to as "Indo-Aryan" here has always been referred to as the Indic language group by professional linguists. This is a very plain and simple fact. Indo-Aryan can refer to a people that migrated to Southern Asia from Central Asia, but other than that, it is not the name of a language group. This phenomenon of changing facts is a bit strange, as some people do not seem to have any regards for sourcing text books and professional research apparently, instead of what appears to be pop culture references. Fenarus (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The references and further reading sections list numerous works, presumably written by professional linguists, using the term "Indo-Aryan languages", and Google Scholar is replete with such works, so your contention that it's an error seems to be an error, a puzzling one. Largoplazo (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

They're all sourced from this erroneous wikipedia movement. I'm not sure that legitimizes the new term. Fenarus (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw the term Indo-Aryan languages in use years before Wikipedia ever existed. Heck, years before the internet in general became a widely used thing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ri-i-i-ght, these people are experts in the field, on this language family, on its existing scholarly literature, and on their own research—but when they sit down to write papers and books about it, they don't know what to call the group until they look it up in Wikipedia.

Did you not notice that the publication of many of these works predates Wikipedia? Similar to Khajidha, that's what I've known those languages as since I first learned about the Indo-European language family in the 1970s. From reading books on linguistics, not from Wikipedia, since I didn't have a time machine. Largoplazo (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Language family classification of Maithili

My recent edit was reverted by @Jujubhaju:. So I would like to discuss the current classification of Maithili in the language family section. While some older and outdated sources place Maithili within the Bihari subgroup, more recent and reliable scholarship generally describes it as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language and recognizes it as a distinct language with its own literary tradition and historical development. These sources emphasize that Maithili has evolved independently and possesses characteristics that distinguish it from the Bihari subgroup classification. For example:

•Encyclopaedia Britannica describes Maithili as a distinct Indo-Aryan language which is very different from Bihari Subgroup. Does not require the Bihari label when discussing Maithili as a language.

•Research Paper (2020)

A Finite State Transducer Based Morphological Analyzer of Maithili Language.

Explicitly states: "Maithili is an eastern Indo-Aryan language."

•Maithili is a distinct and well-established Eastern Indo-Aryan language with its own rich literary tradition, historical development, and linguistic identity. Its phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and documented literary heritage differentiate it significantly from other languages traditionally grouped under the Bihari label. Consequently, classifying or subsuming Maithili under the Bihari subgroup may not accurately reflect contemporary linguistic scholarship, which increasingly recognizes Maithili as an independent language within the Eastern Indo-Aryan branch. Given its unique historical and linguistic trajectory, Maithili deserves to be represented on the basis of its own merits rather than through classifications derived from outdated or generalized frameworks. I would appreciate comments from other editors regarding whether the article should reflect differing scholarly classifications. PurabAnand9 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The subgroup of the Bihari languages is not an "outdated framework". This subgroup was first observed by George Abraham Grierson who, however, made the fatal mistake of lumping Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili and some varieties spoken by tribal groups together into a single "Bihari language". Historical lingiusts from Chatterji to Cardona have since then agreed with Grierson about the fact that the "Bihari" languages are most closely related to each other, but they generally reject the notion of a single "Bihari language" that relegates Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili etc. to dialect status, and instead acknowledge them as distinct languages. It is thus only the concept of the "Bihari" language that is patently outdated. This is most probably the source of antipathy towards the Bihari subgroup by Maithili (and to lesser degree also Magahi and Bhojpuri) language activists, and the resulting (absolutely ridiculous) gatekeeping of a mainstream scholarship classification from the article Maithili language (except in the infobox).

Another issue comes with the term "Bihari", which has become a somewhat inept label for the subgroup especially after the formation of the state of Jharkhand. See Paudyal & Peterson (2021), p. 328-329) for a brief discussion. Paudyal & Peterson even state that [t]he term "Bihari" has fallen into disuse among most modern researchers and propose "Magadhan" as a new name for this subgroup, but this is still a bold step. First, "Bihari" is still very much in use among scholars, and secondly, the term "Magadhan" has long been used for a wider grouping that includes the Bihari, Odia and Bengali-Assamese languages and is thus synonymous to "Eastern Indo-Aryan" as define by most scholars. Anyway, the labelling of the Bihari subgroup is another story that is only peripherically relevant to this discussion.

The fact that some sources chose to the describe Maithili as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language without mentioning its affiliation with the Bihari subgroup does automatically contradict the latter fact; you can well find thousands of sources that characterize English as simply an Indo-European language, but that doesn't mean it has ceased to be considered a Germanic language. And obviously, also English is recognized as an independent language with a unique historical and linguistic trajectory, and yet nobody cites this as proof that English should be treated as a first-level isolate branch of the Indo-European languages.

In short: present us a secondary source from the field of historical linguistics (obviously, only such sources are relevant for linguistic classification) that positively describes the Bihari subgroup as outdated or invalid, before we can continue a discussion about the classification of Maithili untarnished by identity politics. –Austronesier (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I agree that describing Maithili as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language does not by itself invalidate a Bihari subgroup. Our point is not that Maithili's independent status automatically excludes a Bihari affiliation but that the status of the Bihari node should be supported by reliable historical-linguistic sources. One source relevant to this discussion is Ramawatar Yadav's *A Reference Grammar of Maithili* (Chapter 1, page1), where Maithili is described directly as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language and its earlier treatment as a dialect of a "spurious language called Bihari" is explicitly characterized as part of an older classification. In academic usage, the term "spurious" generally means artificial, not well-founded, or lacking an adequate linguistic basis. Thus, Yadav appears to be questioning the validity of treating Maithili as dialect of a something called "Bihari" rather than merely using "Bihari" as a neutral classificatory label. While this does not necessarily invalidate a Bihari subgroup, it does indicate a critical view of the older Bihari-language concept. Thenationbureau (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The claim that Maithili must necessarily be classified under a "Bihari" subgroup is not as settled as some editors suggest. While the term "Bihari languages" has a long history in Indo-Aryan linguistics dating back to Grierson, modern scholarship shows considerable variation in how Eastern Indo-Aryan languages are classified, and many contemporary sources simply identify Maithili as an independent Eastern Indo-Aryan language without assigning primary significance to a Bihari subgroup.

First, it should be noted that recognition of Maithili as an independent language is not in dispute. Modern linguistic literature overwhelmingly treats Maithili as a distinct language with its own literary tradition, grammar, phonology, and historical development. Maithili possesses one of the oldest literary traditions among the Indo-Aryan languages and has long been recognized as a separate linguistic entity rather than a dialect of another language.

Second, the term "Bihari" itself has become problematic in contemporary scholarship. Paudyal and Peterson (2021) explicitly note that "the term 'Bihari' has fallen into disuse among most modern researchers" and prefer the term "Magadhan" for the broader grouping. This demonstrates that the traditional label is neither universally accepted nor immune from scholarly criticism. The authors further point out that the term is geographically misleading following the creation of Jharkhand and because the languages concerned are spoken far beyond Bihar.

Third, many modern descriptions classify Maithili directly as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language without reference to a Bihari subgroup. The absence of a Bihari classification in such sources should not automatically be dismissed as incomplete. Where a proposed subgroup is omitted across substantial contemporary literature, Wikipedia should avoid presenting that subgroup as an uncontested fact.

Fourth, linguistic classification should reflect current scholarly consensus rather than historical precedent alone. The fact that Grierson, Chatterji, Cardona, or others recognized affinities among Maithili, Magahi, and Bhojpuri does not automatically require Wikipedia to treat the Bihari subgroup as the primary classificatory framework. Shared ancestry and close relationship do not negate the independent historical trajectory of Maithili.

Unless sources can be provided demonstrating a clear modern consensus that the Bihari subgroup remains the preferred and dominant classification, the article should give primary weight to the uncontroversial description of Maithili as an independent Eastern Indo-Aryan language. Any mention of a Bihari grouping should be presented as one classificatory proposal among others, not as the definitive framework for understanding Maithili's linguistic identity.

References:

Paudyal, Netra P.; Peterson, John (2021). "How one language became four: the impact of different contact-scenarios between 'Sadani' and the tribal languages of Jharkhand." Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 7(2), pp. 328–329.

Rahi, Raza et al. (2020). "A Finite State Transducer Based Morphological Analyzer of Maithili Language." The authors describe Maithili simply as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language.

Wikipedia policy reminder: classification disputes should be resolved through high-quality secondary linguistic sources and not by appeals to regional, ethnic, or political identity. PurabAnand9 (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The argument that Maithili should continue to be primarily identified through the "Bihari" label relies heavily on a classification proposed more than a century ago, while overlooking both the context in which that classification was made and the subsequent development of linguistic scholarship.

First, it is important to understand what Grierson actually did. When George Abraham Grierson placed Maithili within a Bihari subgroup, he was proposing an internal classification of Indo-Aryan languages. He was not denying that Maithili was a distinct language. In fact, Grierson devoted a separate grammatical description to Maithili, documented its literature independently, and acknowledged its rich literary tradition unlike Bhojpuri and Magahi. Therefore, citing Grierson's classification as evidence against Maithili's distinct status is a misunderstanding of his work.

Second, the existence of a Bihari subgroup and the distinctiveness of Maithili are two entirely separate questions. Even if one accepts the existence of a Bihari subgroup, it does not follow that Maithili should be reduced to a mere regional variety. Linguistic classifications routinely contain distinct languages within larger branches. Bengali, Assamese, and Odia are all classified within broader Indo-Aryan groupings, yet no one argues that this diminishes their independent status.

Third, the intellectual and institutional position of Maithili today is fundamentally different from that of Grierson's era. At the time of the Linguistic Survey of India, Maithili lacked the official recognition it now enjoys. Since then, Maithili has been recognized as an independent language in India, has its own academic departments, linguistic studies, literary institutions, and a growing body of modern scholarship devoted specifically to it. Its status is no longer dependent upon a colonial-era classificatory framework.

Fourth, Maithili possesses characteristics that justify discussing it on its own terms: a documented literary tradition stretching back centuries, the legacy of Vidyapati, its traditional Tirhuta script, distinctive grammatical and phonological features, and a speech community numbering in the tens of millions across India and Nepal. These are the characteristics of a historic literary language, not merely a subordinate regional category.

Finally, the practical question is not whether the term "Bihari" once appeared in linguistic literature. The practical question is whether that label remains the most accurate and useful way to describe Maithili today. For many scholars, institutions, and speakers, the answer is no. The label often creates confusion by suggesting that Maithili's primary identity is derived from a broader grouping rather than from its own long-standing linguistic and literary tradition.

Therefore, the strongest position is not that Grierson was "wrong" about everything, nor that historical classifications should be ignored. Rather, it is that Maithili has long been a distinct language, that even Grierson recognized this fact, and that modern scholarship and official recognition provide ample justification for discussing Maithili directly as Maithili, without requiring the older Bihari label to define its identity. The burden is not on Maithili speakers to prove that their language exists independently of the label; the historical record already demonstrates that it does. Maithili had a rich literary tradition long before the words “Bihar” or “Bihari” even existed. Maithil poets like Vidyapati were creating classical works when Mithila already had its own cultural and intellectual identity. The “Bihari” label came later mainly due to colonial administrative grouping. Today, Maithili is also among the major spoken languages of Nepal and Jharkhand, showing that Mithila’s linguistic identity extends far beyond present-day Bihar. Theninthsoul (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that Grierson recognized Maithili as a distinct language and that the existence of a Bihari subgroup is, in principle, a separate question from Maithili's independent linguistic status.

However, this is precisely why I believe Wikipedia should reconsider the prominence currently given to the Bihari subgroup in articles such as Maithili, Eastern Indo-Aryan languages, and Indo-Aryan languages.

The central issue is not whether some historical linguists proposed a Bihari subgroup. The issue is whether that subgroup represents the primary and most widely used framework in contemporary scholarship for describing Maithili. Many modern linguistic, educational, and institutional sources identify Maithili directly as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language without emphasizing a Bihari intermediary classification. In practice, Maithili is overwhelmingly discussed as an independent language with its own history, literature, grammar, script tradition, and linguistic scholarship.

Even your own argument acknowledges that Maithili's distinct identity predates both the modern state of Bihar and the "Bihari" label itself. The literary tradition of Mithila, including the works of Vidyapati, developed long before the emergence of modern regional classifications. Maithili therefore possesses a historical continuity that does not depend on the Bihari framework for its legitimacy or explanation.

Wikipedia should reflect the terminology and classifications that receive the greatest weight in reliable modern sources. If contemporary scholarship increasingly treats Maithili directly as an independent Eastern Indo-Aryan language, then giving a disputed or inconsistently used Bihari subgroup equal prominence risks violating due weight.

Based on the evidence presented above, I propose that the Bihari subgroup be removed from the primary classification of Maithili in the Maithili article, the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages article, and the Indo-Aryan languages article.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. Maithili is widely recognized in modern scholarship, academia, and government institutions as an independent Eastern Indo-Aryan language with its own literary tradition, grammatical system, linguistic history, and standardized form.

2. The Bihari subgroup is neither universally accepted nor consistently used in contemporary linguistic literature. A significant number of modern sources classify Maithili directly under Eastern Indo-Aryan without mentioning a Bihari intermediary branch.

3. Wikipedia should not present a disputed or inconsistently used classification as though it were an uncontested fact. Doing so gives undue weight to one classificatory framework while minimizing alternative treatments found in reliable sources.

4. The historical existence of the Bihari classification does not automatically justify its continued placement in the main classification hierarchy. Many historical classifications have been revised, modified, or abandoned as scholarship develops.

Therefore, I propose the following changes:

• Remove "Bihari" from the primary linguistic classification shown in the Maithili article.
• Remove "Bihari" as a mandatory intermediate branch in the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages article.
• Remove "Bihari" from the principal classification tree in the Indo-Aryan languages.
• If reliable sources discussing the Bihari subgroup are considered noteworthy, they can be included in dedicated classification sections as one scholarly interpretation rather than presented as the definitive classification of Maithili.

Until a clear contemporary scholarly consensus demonstrating the validity and centrality of the Bihari subgroup is established through high-quality secondary sources, Wikipedia should classify Maithili directly as an Eastern Indo-Aryan language and avoid presenting the Bihari subgroup as a settled taxonomic category. PurabAnand9 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)