File talk:Bengali dialects2.png

Issues with maps

@Jacklincoln47: Hi. I noticed this map includes parts of Assam (as well as Bihar, Odisha) under "Bengali dialects", and I wanted to raise a few concerns for discussion.
1. The area in western Assam up to Barpeta district is labeled "Rangpuri", but I haven't been able to find this term used anywhere in Assam, or a source supporting it. The area is also divided between different dialects: the Barpetia dialect is considered a sub-dialect of the Kamrupi dialects (an Assamese dialect group), while the Goalparia dialect to the west is considered a dialect of both Assamese and Kamtapuri. Toulmin (2009, p. 240) actually shows it as descended from both East Kamarupa (Assamese) and West Kamarupa (Kamtapuri), rather than classifying these areas as Bengali dialects.
2. The map also includes Sylheti and Chittagonian without noting that most modern linguists consider these distinct languages rather than dialects of Bengali.
3. Worth mentioning too, the Sylheti speaking population in Hojai district of central Assam reflects recent migration. If recent migration were used as a basis for inclusion, it could end up covering many parts of the world, including the UK, Gulf countries, West Bengal, Shillong, and so on.
4. Kamtapuri, which is an officially recognised language in West Bengal, doesn't appear to be marked as a distinct language on the map either.
Given these issues, I'd ask that the map be corrected to reflect accurate sourcing and classification. Happy to help locate sources if that's useful. Thanks. Msasag (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for raising these points. A few clarifications may help. Kamtapuri and Rangpuri are generally treated as the same language, with "Rangpuri" often used as a regional name in Bangladesh and "Kamtapuri" as the more common name in India. Goalpariya was included because many linguists classify it as a dialect of Bengali. That said, I am aware that it is also analysed as a dialect of Assamese, and I agree that this should be made clearer. Regarding Barpeta, that is actually not Rangpuri that I added there. I extended the Goalpariya area as far as Barpeta and Bongaigaon. Since Goalpariya is included within the Rangpuri dialect cluster on this map, it appears under the Rangpuri label. In this map, Rangpuri is being used as a dialect cluster rather than as a single point label. I do however agree thst the representation around Barpeta could be improved and I can correct that. The other version of the map does already mark Rangpuri, Chittagonian and Sylheti with an asterisk to indicate that they are sometimes treated as dialects and sometimes as languages. I considered doing the same for Noakhali aka Noakhailla, but it is more commonly treated as a dialect than as a separate language, so I decided against it. I can make adjustments for Hojai. I can also correct the issue around Barpeta. Thanks again! Jacklincoln47 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: Hi, thanks for the detailed response and for agreeing to fix Hojai and Barpeta.
I'd like to also raise Bongaigaon and the modern Goalpara district here, since the pattern is similar. In Goalpara, the eastern part speaks a Kamrupi (Assamese) dialect, while the western part speaks the same dialect as Bongaigaon. Even in older, historical sources, when "Goalpariya" (covering Dhubri and South Salmara Mankachar district) was classified under Bengali, these other areas were generally not included with it. They were instead grouped under Assamese. So extending the label that far may go beyond what even the older sources supported.
On the broader classification question, I think it's worth being cautious about relying on colonial-era linguistic surveys here. At that time, even Assamese and Odia were classified as dialects of Bengali until they gained separate recognition, and the same surveys grouped languages like Chakma and Hajong under Bengali as well. Scholarship has moved on significantly since then, and more recent work, such as Toulmin's, no longer classifies these varieties as Bengali dialects. Speakers in these areas don't refer to their own speech as Bengali dialects, and terms like "Rangpuri" aren't really used by communities in Assam at all (here they call their varieties with regional and ethnic names like Goalpariya/Deshi/Uzeni/Koch Rajbongshi mostly consider them as Assamese and many also see them as separate languages, with some using the term Kamtapuri). This also applies to the Surjapuri and Rajbansi speaking areas.
I'd compare it to how a map of Assamese dialects wouldn't extend into Rangpur or northern West Bengal and label those areas as Goalpariya dialects of Assamese, even though there's historical and structural overlap. I think the same principle should apply here in reverse.
Given that communities like Kamtapuri speakers have worked hard for linguistic recognition (as Assamese and Odia speakers did earlier), I think it's worth reflecting that in how the map is drawn, rather than defaulting to older classifications. Happy to share specific sources or page references if useful for revising it. Msasag (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: Just following up on this, haven't seen a response yet. If you're busy, I'm happy to make the edits myself based on the sources discussed above, and you're welcome to review afterward. Let me know either way. Thanks. Msasag (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Msasag: I've already mentioned this before: Rangpuri is being used as a dialect cluster rather than as a single point label, within which Goalpariya is included. I am not suggesting that Rangpuri is the name used by Goalpariya speakers, or by speakers of related varieties, to refer to their own dialect. At the same time, many linguists classify Goalpariya as a dialect of Bengali, so its classification remains disputed. Given that, I think it is more appropriate to keep Goalpariya within the Rangpuri dialect cluster on the map. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: Goalpariya isn't classified under Bengali by any modern linguists and speakers of Goalpariya never call their varieties as dialects of Bengali. They either call it as Assamese or a separate language (which is similar to how different Noakhailla or even Chittagonian speakers call their varieties as either Bengali or separate languages, but never "Assamese"). It's not appropriate to mislabel and it should be corrected. I'd like to repeat that even Assamese, Odia etc were once considered as Bengali dialects by some and that doesn't mean they should be treated like that anymore. Some linguists like Grierson counted Medinipuri varieties spoken in West Bengal under Odia, but is this appropriate to do that anymore given their speakers don't identify as Odia. Hence the map needs corrections. Msasag (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point, mate, but Goalpariya is not a case where there is only one accepted classification. Goalpariya has historically been grouped with the Bengali dialect continuum by a number of linguists, especially within the wider RKR/KRDS/KRNB group. This is due to its close linguistic relationship with these varieties across Assam, West Bengal, northern Bangladesh and parts of Bihar. I am aware that many scholars today classify Goalpariya as an Assamese dialect, I acknowledge that. However, other classifications still connect it with the Bengali related varieties, especially because of the linguistic continuum in this region. The boundaries between Assamese, Bengali and Kamtapuri/Rangpuri languages are not always clear cut. The map is not claiming that all Goalpariya speakers identify as Bengali or that there is no debate. It represents linguistic classification, showing the 6 major dialect clusters of Bengali, while recognising that some varieties are disputed (mentioning the asterisk * again). That is why the map already marks "Rangpuri" with notes where they are sometimes considered languages and sometimes dialects. Yes, speaker identity is important, but linguistic classification is not always based only on what speakers call their language. Historical development, shared features and relationships between varieties are also considered. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: KRDS group by Toulmin doesn't say that KRDS varieties are Bengali dialects. So being part of this group doesn't make any of the varieties part of Bengali. The whole Indo-Aryan branch is a dialect continuum, from Sindh to Assam and Baltistan to Goa. Languages are divided based on how speakers identify. You said that it is about linguistic classification, but "Bengali" itself is a socio-political group of language varieties whose many speakers identify themselves as "Bengali speakers". Otherwise there's more proximity between Assamese and Standard Bengali than between Chittagonian and Standard Bengali. Even standard Odia would be closer to Standard Bengali. The older sources that you use also say that. You also mentioned "6 major dialect clusters of Bengali". If it was really linguistic then why would Assamese and Odia get just one cluster, that too partially (the Kamarupic group for eg, includes both KRDS lects and Assamese). So language varieties are divided into different languages based on how the speakers identify. And if speakers of certain varieties don't identify with a certain language, it is inappropriate to mislabel them. Msasag (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Linguists such as Das and Sanyal have treated Goalpariya as a dialect of Bengali. Dr Muhammad Shahidullah also stated that the northern Bengali dialects extend from Purnia in Bihar to Goalpara, and a recent study notes that Bengali vocabulary forms part of Goalpariya. As I said earlier, the classification of Goalparia is disputed, with some scholars instead treating it as Assamese or as a separate language. This map is not intended to represent speaker identity or official language status. Since it is a dialect classification rather than an ethnic or political one, including Goalpariya on the Bengali side of the map does not amount to mislabelling its speakers. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Msasag Toulmin reconstructs a proto-Kamta stage ancestral to later Assamese and KRNB varieties which is exactly why this region is usually discussed as a transitional zone rather than a neat one-language block. At the same time, contemporary Assamese scholarship still treats Goalparia as one of the important dialects of Assamese, while other work on Goalpariya notes that there are still doubts over whether it should be treated as Assamese, Bengali or something else (example, an independent language like Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, Surjapuri, Noakhailla, Chatgaiya, Syloti, Rajbanshi, etc). That is why I don't think it's fair to describe the map as simply "mislabelling" Goalpariya. The map is not saying that every speaker calls it Bengali or that its speakers call themselves Bengali as I mentioned above, or that the classification is uncontested. This is also consistent with the history of the Assam language debate: Assamese itself was once imposed in colonial administration as Bengali (like you mentioned), and later restored so older labels on their own are not a good reason to treat a variety as permanently fixed in one category. Goalpariya can reasonably be kept on the map as a disputed transitional variety connected to the Bengali-Assamese continuum, rather than being removed outright. As for other errors, I can remove or fix them.Jacklincoln47 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47, As per West Bengal Government, Rangpuri-Kamata language is an official language of West Bengal but not Assam yet. As far as linguistic KRDS lects and political status goes, there seems to be a convergence. So any current map should not show Rnagpuri-Kamatapuri language as Bengali.

If we were to go by Grierson, then only Western Goalpariya is Bengali whereas Eastern Goalpariya is Assamese. So, either way, this map is wrong, and deserves to be deleted.

FYI, @Msasag, @Fylindfotberserk.

Chaipau (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. And technically Sylheti and Chittagonian should not be included either considering the lack of clear consensus among the academics. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed to excluding Sylheti and Chittagonian. Chaipau (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান Do you think Chittagonian, Goalpariya, Rangpuri and Sylheti should be excluded? Jacklincoln47 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with both points raised above. Thanks @Chaipau and Fylindfotberserk: for weighing in on this. Msasag (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Right then, but if we use that logic, the Burmese government doesn't recognise the Rohingya and instead labels them as Bengali. In the same way, Rangpuris/Kamtas aren't recognised in Bangladesh. If you provide more sources, I could exclude Goalpariya. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: I don't think the Rohingya comparison quite holds up here. Rohingyas are a persecuted minority denied basic rights, including the right to self-identify their own language, that's a case of a government actively suppressing recognition for political reasons, not a linguistic classification question. Rangpuri/Kamtapuri isn't in that position, it has official recognition in West Bengal, and its classification isn't contested on political grounds but simply not yet formally addressed in Bangladesh. Lack of recognition in one country doesn't override the linguistic evidence, especially when that evidence points the same direction across multiple sources. Like modern sources like Toulmin, Masica, even older sources like SK Chatterjee and BK Kakati also said that it's linguistically closer to Assamese. To be clear, that doesn't mean it should be labelled an Assamese dialect either, just that Bengali doesn't fit. As for Goalpariya, like Chaipau said, the Eastern variety has been considered as Assamese by older sources like Grierson, and modern sources like Toulmin also shows it's dual origin from both East Kamarupa (Assamese) and West Kamarupa (KRDS/Kamtapuri). As for West Goalpariya, the dispute is between Assamese and KRDS. Bengali doesn't come to the picture here, except for very old colonial era sources from a time when even Assamese and Odia were often labeled as Bengali dialects. Like I had mentioned, scholarship have changed much and speakers have more freedom to self identify. Given all this, I agree with Chaipau and Fylindfotberserk that KRDS (including both Goalpariya varieties), Sylheti, and Chittagonian shouldn't be included on a map specifically about Bengali dialects. Msasag (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your response. I will remove Goalpariya from both the dialect cluster map and the second version of the map. However, I think it is better to keep Sylheti, Noakhailla, Chittagonian and Rangpuri. Although they are now often treated as separate languages, they have historically been classified as dialects of Bengali and many of their speakers also identify as Bengali. And those languages (excluding Rangpuri/Kamtapuri in India) are not formally recognised by either the Indian or Bangladeshi government; they are still treated as local varieties of Bengali. In addition, the Wikipedia article on Bengali dialects also includes them as dialects. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47: Thanks for the response and I appreciate that you agreed to remove Goalpariya. I'd like to differ regarding Sylheti, Chittagonian and Rangpuri. Kamtapuri is formally recognized as a distinct language, rather than a dialect of Bengali in India. The West Bengal Official Language (Second Amendment) Bill, 2018 states thus: to declare Kamtapuri Language,...as Official Languages in the Districts,... the Kamtapuri, Rajbanshi and Kurmali Language may be used in addition to the Bengali Language, the Nepali Language, the Urdu Language, the Hindi Language, the Santhali Language, the Oriya Language and the Punjabi Language.

It clearly states Kamtapuri and Bengali as distinct languages. I'd still ask as @Chaipau and Fylindfotberserk: did, to remove Sylheti and Chittagonian as well in addition to Kamtapuri/Rangpuri. Noakhailla can be kept but marked on the map that it's also considered as a distinct language. The other areas to remove are the areas in Odisha (speaks an Odia dialect), Bihar (Surjapuri speaking) and Nepal (Rajbanshi speaking). The changes shall be applied to all articles using such maps. Msasag (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be better to continue discussing whether Chittagonian, Rangpuri and Sylheti should be included for now, because the classification of these varieties is still disputed. For the time being, I can remove Goalpariya and the Hojai areas. Yes, Rangpuri aka Kamtapuri, is recognised in West Bengal, but there is still disagreement among sources about how these varieties should be classified. I have also already added an asterisk * (second map) noting that these three areas are sometimes considered dialects and sometimes considered separate languages (Will add it for Noakhailla as well). @আফতাবুজ্জামান @Chaipau @Fylindfotberserk @Msasag Jacklincoln47 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47, these all are disputed politically, probably. But not linguistically. Is this a political or a linguistic map? Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a linguistic map. I will add asterisks to separate those languages from Vanga in the legend and indicate that they are sometimes classified as separate languages. And those languages are not politically disputed either. In fact, apart from Rangpuri/Kamtapuri, none of them are recognised as independent languages by the Indian or Bangladeshi governments. Also, kindly move to Talk:Bengali dialects#Issues with map and continue the discussion there. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jacklincoln47, if it is a linguistic map, then Sylheti cannot be a Bengali dialect. Modern linguists today do not consider it to be a dialect. Even Chaterji (1926) says it arose from Magadhi independently and not from old Bengali. In page 140, he clearly lists Vanga as an independent development from Magadhi Apabhramsha, and that the four main descent lines indicate independent development has been clarified by Toulmin. As far as Sylheti is concerned, mutual unintelligibility, tonalization, fricatization etc. make it a different language, which has been extensively discussed in the Sylheti language talk page. Wikipedia cannot say two different things in two different places. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC) (edited 13:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC))

{{Moved to Talk:Bengali dialects#Issues with maps}}