Talk:Eastern Bengali dialects

Perhaps not

Bengali!? You mean Bangal, right? This article could very well be up for deletion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, this classification is officially called Bangali, but West Bengalis may call it Bangal. Also the map is wrong and is meant to contain Sylhet and Chittagong and remove Kushtia and Sundarbans.UserNumber (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

@Sylotoid Thank you for your edits on this article. However, it is important to note that in Wikipedia we tend to reference pieces of information. Many of your entries include entire paragraphs/sections that are entirely unreferenced. Please add the appropriate references, or the information will have to be removed. UserNumber (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@UserNumber Hi, sorry about that. I planned on adding the references (especially to Geographical distribution, which might need to be renamed?) shortly after my last edits but lost track of time, I'll take care of it now. Let me know if there's anywhere specific besides that which needs referencing (or removing). Sylotoid (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Conciseness

The consonants section could probably be made a lot more concise if the different lenitions were grouped together, but this would result in some pretty major restructuring of the article. In its current state, it's unnecessarily lengthy imo Zahiniya (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead articles of dialect pages

Upon review of the lead sections in several Eastern Bengali related articles, specifically the Sylheti dialect, Noakhailla dialect, Mymensinghi dialect, Chittagonian dialect, it becomes evident that there is a lack of terminological consistency regarding their classification. This inconsistency not only creates confusion for readers but also diverges from best practices observed in other language articles on Wikipedia, particularly those dealing with dialect continua or regional vernaculars. It is widely acknowledged that the Bengali language exists as a dialect continuum, with significant variation across regions. Leading articles on related linguistic situations (e.g., Arabic varieties, Chinese varieties) typically begin with a phrasing that reflects this complexity; for example, referring to the chosen dialect as "vernacular variety" or "dialect continuum" I propose that the lead sections of the articles mentioned at the start be revised to reflect a uniform and neutral formulation, such as: "X is a Bengali variety..." Alternatively: "X is a vernacular Bengali dialect continuum..." This formulation: Avoids prematurely classifying the variety as a "language" or "dialect", avoids having position and aligns with practices used in articles on other dialectally diverse language families. Let's get this done. @Austronesier AKM Abdus Salam Chowdhury (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article

There seems to be some serious problems with this article.

Title

What Chatterji (1926) classed as Vanga dialects was one of four eastern Magadhan dialects, not Bengali dialects. His tabulation at p140 makes this clear. Toulim (2009) clarifies this explicitly: "Note that Chatterji’s classification of 'Bengali dialects' includes lects ancestral to both Asamiya and Oriya. However, Chatterji does not intend to classify these lects as dialects of Bangla. Therefore, Chatterji’s four dialects—Rāḍha, Varêndra, Vaŋga, and Kāmrupa— should not be termed ‘dialects of Bengali’ but rather, ‘dialects [in the sense of historical derivatives] of eastern Magadhan’ (cf. Chatterji 1926:92ff.)." (p218). Therefore, the class of lects, dialects, and languages considered in this article should have a title that should be something like "Vanga dialects of East Bengal", and the nuances associated with this name should be stated in the lead. For example, Chatterji (1920) p108: "The Bengali dialects of the extreme east and south-east (Sylhet, Chittagong) are certainly more removed from Standard Bengali than is Assamese.".

Language vs Dialect

Chatterji himself admitted that the origins of the Vanga dialects of eastern Magadhan are independent of the origins of the Radha dialects (which forms the Standard Colloquial Bengali (West) emerged) - "Thus, East Bengali -ilam (1st person past) and -ibam (1st person future) are independent formations in the dialect of Vanga, just as West Bengali forms -ilum, -ilo, and -ilo are derived from similar independent formations in the Radha dialect; and neither group can be referred to the other, or to a Common Old Bengali..." The latest linguists' positions on this is that Sylheti and other Vanga lects are deemed languages on their right. A discussion here settled the issue for Wikipedia. The title should not prujudge the issue.

FYI, @Austronesier, @Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC) (edited) 02:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

"@Chaipau: You are right. What would you suggest? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, IMO, though Chatterji (1926) has a point when he says all lects developed independently from the Old-Indo-Aryan, his specific details have not been established in the last 100 years since the publication of that work. We are better off following Glottolog and/or Ethnologue. Both of them agree up to Bengali-Assamese languages (which Gottolog calls more appropriately Gauda-Kamarupa, or which should actually be Gauda-Vanga-Kamarupa). Ethnologue does not offer further sub-classifications; but Glottolog does.

This is Glottolog:

• Gauda-Kamarupa
  • Gauda-Banga
    • Bengali
    • Bishnupriya Manipuri
    • Eastern Bengali
      • Sylheti
      • Hajong
    • Southeastern Bengali
      • Chakma
      • Chittagonian
      • Noakhali
      • Tangchaya
    • (Others)
    • Unclassified Gauda-Banga
  • Kamarupa

Though this classification seems very reasonable from what we know today, the naming by Glottolog is unfortunate because though historically correct the two names "Eastern Bengali" and "Southeastern Bengali" seem to suggest that they are dialects of Bengali, while linguists today suggest that they are not. The origin of this confusion is naming the standard arising out of "Gaudiya" (the language of Gauda) as "Bangla" (the language of Vanga) - which I think happened in the middle of the 19th century during the creation of the Standard Colloquial Bengali (SCB).

Therefore, my suggestion is that we either:

• Split this article into two calling one "Eastern Vanga languages" and "Southeastern Vanga languages" and list the specific languages as given in Glottolog, or
• Delete these article and follow Ethnologue by not specifying any sub-classification beyond Bengali-Assamese/Gauda-Kamarupa.

Here, the use of Vanga instead of Bengali makes specific that we are referring to a historical region and not a modern language.

FYI, @Austronesier.

Chaipau (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

From Chatterji (1926) p249:

In the 16th century, Nadiya is described as being within Gauda-desa ; and the Vanga country or East Bengal, as well as the dialect of Vanga, is contrasted with the land and speech of Gauda. The first native name for Bengali was thus «Gauda-bhasa» probably coming into use as early as the 16th century. This name continued down to the beginning of the 19th century, nay, even later, side by side with the new name «Vanga-bhasa» or «Bangala-bhasa» Raja Ram Mohan Ray, the first Bengali to write a grammar of his mother tongue, called his work 'Gaudiya Vyakarana' (in English, "Grammar of the Bengali Linguage", published in 1833, but finished several years earlier). Madhusudan Datta, the poet, refers to the people of Bengal as «Gaudiyaa-jana» in his "Meghanada-vadha Kavya", in the sixties of the last century.

"Bengal" had three cultural zones as Chatterji (1926) p147 describes it: "There would have grown up, linguistically and culturally, three Bengals — Radha, Varendra and Vanga, — North Bengal going to Kama-rupa (Assam), and the Delta being divided up between Radha and Vanga: and each of these Bengals almost as self-contained as Orissa or Assam

Though the name Bangla did not become standard till the middle of 19th century it was in use in Persian sources, from where the English and the Portuguese received and used exclusively. Chaipau (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Map style

@Msasag, do consider maps drawn like this. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1231041815491928

Boundaries make no sense in linguistic maps, especially in India, where there is a dialect continuum. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a very good map to show overlapping languages/language branches or families. Msasag (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)