Talk:Puyŏ languages

Requested move 18 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Puyŏ languages" (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Koguryoic languages → Goguryeoic languages – The main language in this family is titled Goguryeo language (after Goguryeo). 67.149.246.163 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• The name "Koguryoic" seems to be a coinage of Beckwith, and not used elsewhere. However, "Goguryeoic" is even rarer – the only usage I found was in an unidiomatically translated abstract of a Korean article (doi:10.15822/skllr.2012.40.1.7). More common is "Puyŏ languages", introduced by Lee Ki-Moon, who proposed this grouping (see e.g. Lee and Ramsey's A History of the Korean Language). Kanguole 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  In that case it should be Buyeo languages to be consistent with Buyeo and Buyeo language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  We cannot invent terms (or respell existing ones) just for the sake of consistency. The spelling used in the sources for the language group is binding. I am not aware of a source that uses "Buyeo languages"; a web search only leads to mirrors of older versions of this WP article, and to the work of a historian who dabbles in linguistics, and presumbly relies on WP in his terminology. –Austronesier (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  How is that invention? The first sentence in the article states (Korean: 부여어) which translates to Buyeo language(s). Puyo is the McCune–Reischauer equivalent of Buyeo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  It would be invention of a new English-language term, regardless of the soundness of the etymology. Kanguole 10:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  Kanguole: Regarding the first sentence in the lead: are you aware of an English-language source which actually refers to this grouping as "Fuyu languages"? –Austronesier (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know of any. I agree that by the same logic it should go. Kanguole 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments above. Kanguole, Conprix: In spite of all the differences, I suppose we all agree that we should stick to the spelling conventions used in the sources when it comes to the language group discussed in this article. I would like to remove the unproductive tag. – Austronesier (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I would support a move to Puyŏ languages, because "Koguryoic" doesn't seem to be used by anyone but Beckwith, and we should not give his work undue prominence. Kanguole 09:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Kanguole: A move to Puyŏ languages is indeed the best choice. Conprix will surely agree. – Austronesier (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: I'm all in favour of removing unproductive tags. But if you mean the one relating to this requested move, that's not unproductive.... there have apparently been several bold moves of this article already. This RM should stabilise the name, and once it is actioned and closed the tag will be automatically removed, and we can all move on. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Puyŏ languages (one of the few possible names to which the article has apparently not yet been boldly moved!) as proposed by Austronesier who appears to have a good grasp of the relevant literature and of Wikipedia:naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Affiliation

There is no consensus on the affiliation of these languages, due to the paucity of evidence. Three of them are not attested at all, and the major evidence for Koguryoan is the Samguk sagi placename glosses, which many researchers claim reflects the language of a different group or groups. As Lee and Ramsey say, "In Korea, most researchers have long believed that the language spoken in Koguryŏ was in fact a 'dialect' of Old Korean, and accordingly treat the toponyms as Korean words pure and simple." It is thus easy to find any number of tertiary sources repeating this claim without evidence. It is just as easy to find many sources claiming that Koguryoan is Japonic, or that it is Southern Tungusic, or that the state was multilingual.

As for the other four sources cited, Lee and Ramsey believe the glosses are Koguryoan, and suggest that it is intermediate between Japanese and Korean. Whitman challenge the Koguryoan identification of the glosses, but takes no position on the affiliation of Koguryoan. Vovin and Unger do believe that Koguryoan was Koreanic (though they reject the glosses as Koguryoan), but suggest that the Samhan languages were Japonic and later displaced by Koguryoan. These are just some of a wide variety of theories that have been built on the meagre available evidence. It is inaccurate to claim any consensus.

There is no evidence at all of the Ye-Maek language. Kanguole 17:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Most of all Western linguists today except Beckwith treat Koguryoic as Korean or Koreanic. Thus, the dispute is not about the affiliation of Koguryoic but about whether the glossed placenames of the Samguk sagi from central parts of the Korean peninsula represent Goguryeo language or not. The most of the Western linguists think the glossed placenames from central parts of the Korean peninsula reflect the languages of earlier inhabitants of the area, and call them pseudo-Koguryŏ. The prominent Western linguists believe that the Goguryeo language and other Koguryoic languages were members of the Koreanic language family that either spread from southern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula at earlier times or expanded from Goguryeo during the Three Kingdoms of Korea period to Baekje and Silla by Goguryeo migrants. These scholars extracted Goguryeo vocabulary from the various ancient records and inscriptions excluding these problematic placenames from the central parts of the Korean peninsula.

• It is thus easy to find any number of tertiary sources repeating this claim without evidence: Is your argument purely personal point-of-view or can you give me any academic sources of equal or greater reliability that say the tertiary sources I provided claim without evidence? For Instance, an expert linguist of Japonic languages, Thomas Pellard’s review criticized Beckwith’s theory as follows: Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith’s reconstructions and conclusions. Again, can you provide any scholarly review that says these tertiary sources I provided claim without any evidence? According to the policy of Wikipedia, your speculation alone does not justify any mass-deletion of the text based on these multiple reliable high-quality tertiary sources. Conprix (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Conprix: Before going into depth: can you explain to why Cranell (2011) and Horvath & Vaughan (1991) are relevant sources for the topic of this article? I have noted on a different occasion that Cranell's concern is not the subgrouping of historical and fragmentarily-attested languages of the first millenium CE, but contrastive synchronic phonology for the sake of coaching non-native speakers to improve their pronunciation of English. His short language portraits are meant to provide some background info, nothing more, and his own 'source' for the statement about the history of Korean is the "Handbook of Korea", which is hardly a specialist source (and which I am sure leans on the work of Kim Nam-Il). The same holds mutatis mutandis for Horvath & Vaughan (1991). So these two of your "multiple reliable high-quality tertiary sources" are of reduced relevance. And two others of your array of sources are by the same author, viz. Kim Nam-Il (which btw wouldn't be visible if I hadn't fixed the citations!). Kim's work is definitely relevant to this discussion, and one citation was therefore wisely kept by Kanguole. – Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: I meant to say The World's Major Languages from Routledge and International Encyclopedia of Linguistics from Oxford University as reliable high-quality tertiary sources. Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, for the lead section of the article and may be helpful in evaluating due weight. Another two sources also indicate high acceptance of the theory in the academic field of linguistics, that Puyo languages are Korean (Koreanic). As for Horvath & Vaughan (1991), it is highly professional and sophisticated book also covering the history of each world languages. The mainstream of the Western linguists specialized in ancient Japanese and/or Korean believe that the Goguryeo language was members of the Koreanic language family, unlike Beckwith specialized in Sino-Tibetan languages. One step further, Alexander Vovin, and James Marshall Unger classify Goguryeo as Old Korean. Conprix (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Regarding tertiary sources, my point is that citation bombing using authors not directly familiar with the subject proves nothing, because one will find authors citing Beckwith as uncritically as Horvath and Vaughn cite Kim Nam-Kil.

  The theory that these languages were Tungusic is advanced by Ho-Min Sohn in the Cambridge Language Surveys volume on Korean, and also by Kim Bang-Han and Juha Janhunen.

  I've pointed out above that the Whitman reference doesn't say what you claim it does, and the Lee & Ramsey one actually contradicts the statement it is claimed to support.

  The migration theories of Unger and Vovin are speculative, and not representative of a consensus of Western scholars. (And they've been used selectively here – I doubt you'll be giving them similar weight at Samhan or Han languages.) The more common view is that there's simply too little data to say, e.g. Tranter in the introductory chapter of the Routledge Language Family volume. Kanguole 12:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  The editors of the tertiary sources use the theory of a scholar, whose view can represent the opinion of the academic majority. Thus, it is very unlikely that a professor, who edits linguistic encyclopedia can cite Beckwith's hypothesis on the Goguryeo language which is based on his original minority view. Again, can you please give me any academic sources of equal or greater reliability that say the tertiary sources I provided claim without evidence? For Instance, an expert linguist of Japonic languages, Thomas Pellard’s review criticized Beckwith’s theory as follows: Nevertheless, its too many methodological shortcomings forbid us to accept Beckwith’s reconstructions and conclusions. Or you can give me any reliable tertiary source which contradicts my tertiary sources.

  Ho-Min Sohn is a proponent of the rejected Altaic hypothesis, who believes that Korean language belongs to the Altaic language family. The presence of the minority views like Altaic hypothesis, Dravido-Korean languages do not justify to describe that the affiliation of Korean language is disputed. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Kim Bang-Han seems to be a proponent of the Macro-Tungusic, who believes that the Korean language is based on the Tungusic superstratum and Japonic substratum and who thinks the ancient Tungus people are partial ancestor of Koreans.

  Whitman's reference suggests that the proto-Koreans, already present in southern Manchuria and northern Korea, expanded into the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. Lee, Ki-Moon and Ramsey(2011) suggest the language of Old Choson or Gojoseon, which situated in southwestern Manchuria and the northern Korean peninsula, was ancestral to Korean.

  The migration theories of Vovin and Unger are representative of Western scholars specialized in ancient Japanese and/or Korean. These influential theories led to most the Western linguist to reject the idea that the glosses reconstructed form the toponyms from central parts of the Korean peninsula reflect Goguryeo language. Conprix (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I won't be providing reviews of your tertiary sources, because that is an unreasonable request. It suffices to note that it is Wikipedia policy that generalist tertiary sources should not be used for questions of fact. I have provided reliable secondary sources that give different views, but you do not like what they say.

  Since neither Whitman nor Lee & Ramsey say that Koguryoan is Korean, they should not not be cited as sources for that statement. I don't see where Lee & Ramsey suggest that the language of Old Choson was ancestral to Korean (though they do mention a couple of interesting placenames) – perhaps you could quote the relevant statement.

  The Vovin/Unger migration theories contradict the all-Korean model of your selected sources, which demonstrates that neither is a consensus view. In fact you've been removing that theory from the Samhan article due to this contradiction.

  In addition to the bald assertion of affiliation, the lead has other problems:

  • The Chinese sources say nothing about the language of Gojoseon.
  • Regarding Baekje, the suggestion is that the language of the ruling class was Puyŏ.
  • They say that the four languages were very different from the (unattested) language of Sushen, which people have conjectured was Tungusic, but that is not at all the same as "very different from Tungusic languages".
  • There is no evidence at all of the Ye-Maek language.

  Kanguole 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  You made an opinion based on a Wikipedia essay, that can be edited by all users of Wikipedia, on tertiary sources, while I introduced the Wikipedia policy on tertiary sources. With tertiary sources we can differentiate between a majority view and a small minority view. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view.

  Lee and Ramsey premised that in the remote past the geographical Korea was a multicultural and a multiethnic place. And Lee and Ramsey questioned which of the groups were the ancestors of today’s Koreans and out of which of their languages would Korean be formed. Under these questions, they directly introduced Old Choson as the answer of the questions.

  The only difference of the two views is the date and time of the Korean migration to the Korean peninsula. The two views form a consensus that all three kingdoms of Korea spoke Koreanic language.

  • At the beginning of the Baekje, the people spoke Puyo(Early Baekje). They expanded southwards and gained control over the territory once belonging to Mahan. It is can be assumed that Early Baekje gradually transformed into New Baekje which was influenced by Han language.
  • Ho-Min Sohn(1999) is one of many authors, who says that it is widely accepted that the Sushen is the ancestor of Jurchen. It seems that you trust his work. Conprix (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  You have cited two survey articles by Kim Nam-Kil, in which he presents a view that we know to be popular among scholars in Korea. Similar surveys by Lee and Ramsey, Sohn and Tranter present different views. The two references by authors with no expertise in the area prove nothing. Young Kyun Oh's thesis is equivocal, acknowledging the paucity of evidence and covering the alterative theories.

  Lee and Ramsey do not suggest that the language of Old Choson was ancestral to Korean.

  If Vovin/Unger are correct, there are no two branches of Koreanic, because Han was Japonic and the Silla language is descended from Koguryoan. That's a completely different proposition, and a speculative theory that does not have consensus.

  Your assertions and assumptions about Baekje lack support.

  There is a difference between saying that something is different from some languages that are believed to be Tungusic and saying that it is different from Tungusic languages (as a whole). Kanguole 17:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Reliable high-quality tertiary sources like The World's Major Languages from Routledge and International Encyclopedia of Linguistics from Oxford University and other secondary sources I provided indicate high acceptance of this theory in the Western academic field of linguistics. The editors of the reliable high-quality tertiary sources are all professors in linguistics. The editors use the theory of a scholar, whose view can represent the opinion of the academic majority. And Lee and Ramsey also believe the languages of three Kingdoms of Korea were related to each other.

  You steadily have denounced multiple established linguists based on your assumptions. But I have been critical to Beckwith’s hypothesis based on Thomas Pellard’s review. Do you see the difference?

  Lee and Ramsey suggest that the language of Old Choson was ancestral to Korean.

  Vovin and Unger view language of each three Kingdoms of Korea are all variety of Old Korean. Two views form a consensus not because Vovin and Unger are proponents of the two branches of ancient Koreanic but form a consensus that all three kingdoms of Korea spoke Koreanic language.

  According to the Chinese record History of the Northern Dynasties, the language of Malgal was different from that of Goguryeo. As for Ho-Min Sohn, You can cite his work, only if you trust him as a linguist. Conprix (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Conprix: I am confused about your insistence that the reworking of the article by Kanguole is biased. I simple fail to see at which point Kanguole has "denounced multiple established linguists", except for presenting a full picture of the current spectrum of scholarly views. Apparently, you already object to the mere mention of Beckwith’s hypothesis and other proposals which may contradict the monolithic reiteration of a specific scholarly point of view (as reflected e.g. in the relevant contributions of Kim Nam-Il to two reference works). The debate about the interpretation of historiographic and toponymic evidence is alive and meets the notability criteria for the inclusion in WP, and is also cited in a reliable high-quality tertiary source such as the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics (section 2, third paragraph). Of course, it is obvious that the latter inevitable reflects the point of view of the contributing author (Vovin), but exactly this is also the case for Kim's contributions. –Austronesier (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Pseudo-Koguryo is covered under the article title, Origins of the Japanese Language not under that of the Puyo languages: This reliable high-quality tertiary source has given us the correct answer. The editors of the reliable high-quality tertiary sources are all professors in linguistics: We should not denounce these professors by saying like tertiary sources repeating this claim without evidence. Nowadays, the migration theory of Vovin represent mainstream theory of Western scholars specialized in ancient Japanese and/or Korean. Thus, Vovin deserves to be a contributing author of Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics like Kim Nam-Il, a contributing author of Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. The editors of the tertiary sources welcome theories of scholars which can represent the opinion of the academic majority. Thus, we can differentiate between a majority view and a small minority view with tertiary sources in order for evaluating due weight. Conprix (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  The "two references by authors with no expertise in the area" I referred to were Crannell (2011) and Horvath & Vaughan (1991), both since removed by User:Austronesier.

  It is clear from the reviews of Unger's book that he is presenting a speculative theory, which goes well beyond what Whitman calls an "emerging consensus" that Japonic came to Japan from the Korean peninsula.

  The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics selected Kim Nam-Il to give an overview of Korean, just as the Cambridge Language Surveys selected Ho-Min Sohn and the Routledge Language Family Series selected Nicholas Tranter, each of whom present different views of Koguryoan than Kim. There is no consensus, and Wikipedia should not baldly assert one. Kanguole 11:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  In any case, I have been expanding the body of the article to give an overview of the evidence and views. It emerges that there is very little evidence (particularly if the placename glosses are excluded), and no agreement about the languages. It is time to revise the introduction to summarize the article. Kanguole 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  In case of assessing academic authors, any statement in the talk page should be sourced rather than being based on your personal opinion. Review articles can help clarify academic assessment of authors.

  World's Major Languages from Routledge and Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics are all tertiary sources which were edited by the professors in linguistics. They rely on secondary sources which can represent the mainstream theories. Thus, we can differentiate between a majority view and a small minority view with tertiary sources in order for evaluating due weight. A secondary source can be reliable, but it doesn't automatically mean that it is supported by mainstream scholars.

  As for the work by Trenter, which is in favor of theories proposing a genetic relationship between Korean and Japanese, confessed that historical and conparative information in Japan and Korea, especially Korea is relatively shallow. The source is not relevant for reconstructing or identifying Puyo languages or Goguryeo language. The source not relevant with the subject proves nothing.

  As for Ho-Min Sohn, I haven't found in any high-quality tertiary sources that state Koguryo language was Tungusic. It is very unlikely that a professor, who edits a linguistic encyclopedia can allow undue weight to any hypothesis of small minority on Koguryo language. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Conprix (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The editors of the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics chose experts to contribute articles on various topics, including Kim Nam-Kil for Korean. Similarly the editors of the Cambridge Language Surveys chose Ho-Min Sohn to write the Korean volume and the editors of the Routledge Language Family Series chose Nicholas Tranter to edit their Japan-Korea volume. (With regard to Tranter, that the lack of information makes a determination impossible is his point.) All have been selected to give an expert overview of their subject. You cannot place all the weight on one and dismiss the others. Kanguole 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when secondary sources contradict each other. World's Major Languages from Routledge, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics and Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics are all tertiary sources representing the mainstream theories and they don't allow undue weight to any hypothesis of small minority. Ho-Min Sohn(1999), Beckwith(2004) and Tranter(2012) are all second sources which are also reliable, since they are neither fringe nor pseudo–scientific. But each secondary source can show quite different degrees of acceptance in the academic field of linguistics. For instance, we cannot give same weight to Bechwith's small-minority theory rejected by most of the linguists who label the theory as Pseudo-Koguryŏ, as Vovin's theory representing the mainstream view of the Western scholars specialized in ancient Japanese and/or Korean. How can we differentiate between a majority view and a small minority view? As already mentioned and as the policy of the Wikipedia says, with reliable tertiary sources.

According to Lee and Ramsey(2011) the languages of three kingdoms of Korea were closely related each other, though not enough to support that they belonged to the same language. They merely stated that the linguistic evidence of Goguryeo is neither voluminous nor of high quality. They did not mention that the affiliation of Puyo or Koguryo is unclear. Regarding Tranter, the Koguryo is treated and categorized as a dialect of Old Korean in his work. Even though Tranter is in favor of the theory proposing the languages of three Kingdoms of Korea belonged to Old Korean, he acknowledged that it is impossible to draw a definite conclusion due to the vague nature of toponyms in ancient Korean Peninsula.

"Chinese histories provide the only contemporaneous accounts of the Korean peninsula and eastern Manchuria in the early centuries of the common era." Lee and Ramsey merely introduced some Chinese records which can be crucial to grasp the linguistic relationships between languages in ancient Manchuria and Korean peninsula. It should not be cited as sources for that statement or at least "the only" should be omitted. Actually, Korean morphological characteristics were found in Goguryeo inscription. Vovin(2005) discusses the morphological characteristics of Korean revealed in the analysis of the Goguryeo inscriptions of Gwanggaeto Stele. The use of '之' is similar to that of the Silla inscription, and it is said that no such possible cognate is found in Japonic. It also says that the usage of '伊' indicate Koguryo to be Korean. Conprix (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained why a commissioned volume in a survey series by a major academic publisher are more like a larger version of an encyclopedia article than a research monograph like Beckwith's. (And Kim recommends Sohn's book as a fuller treatment of the language.) As User:Austronesier has already noted, Vovin's encyclopedia article contains a mix of consensus views and Vovin's own views, and even some polemic.

Lee and Ramsey support the statement that the languages are very poorly attested. Since the primary evidence they cite is the placename glosses, which others think are not Koguryoan, the situation may be rather worse than that. We know that the affiliation is unclear because different authors (including Lee & Ramsey) present different views of it, and other authors (Tranter, Georg, Whitman) say it is unclear.

In fact, it is Nam Pung-hyun (not Tranter), in his chapter, who says that Koguryoan was a dialect of Early Old Korean, citing the stele idiosyncracies you mention. Tranter, in his introductory chapter, acknowledges Nam's view, but indicates that he disagrees.

Certainly Chinese accounts are all there is before the 5th century, but it's true that the focus here is on ethnological descriptions. Kanguole 15:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tranter selected linguists as coauthors, who all either support or in favor of the proto-Japanese-Korean theory. And the title of his work itself bears some extent of bias. Tranter's work as a secondary work, it is not obliged to try to represent the mainstream theory. To the contrary, reliable high-quality tertiary sources I mentioned above represent the mainstream theories and by nature they don't allow undue weight to any hypothesis of small minority. Regarding Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vovin's contribution mainly overlaps the mainstream view. But there are also his own views which do not contradict the view of the majority.

Yes, Lee and Ramsey suggest that the languages are poorly attested, no more, no less. Regarding the affiliation, they stated the languages of three kingdoms of Korea were closely related each other, though not enough to support that they belonged to the same language.

In the introductory chapter, Tranter makes two points to bolster his arguments. One of them was Nam's theory on Old Korean. This clearly indicates Tranter is in favor of the theory of Nam. Conprix (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Conprix: So a volume in the Routledge Language Family Series is a biased secondary source, just because it presents research overviews that do not fit into your petrified POV? As someone who has personally contributed to a different volume of that series, I beg to differ: these volumes are also "reliable high-quality tertiary sources" edited by "professors in linguistics". Disqualifying them based on personal (or nationalist?) preferences is not a good base for a constructive discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

By no means I intended to disqualify Tranter's work. To the contrary, I clearly stated Tranter(2012) as reliable source as mentioned above. Regarding my preferences, I personally support his research overviews. But it doesn't mean that I have to claim that his work represents the mainstream theory, this is a different matter. The proto-Japanese-Korean theory isn't a mainstream view. Even though I recognize Tranter and his coauthors, I have to acknowledge that the title The Languages of Japan and Korea of his work itself bears some extent of bias, because the title itself excludes the other theories like a linguistic connection between Japanese and Austronesian. All each source bears inherently some extent of bias more or less. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight. Conprix (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Romanization (Buyeo/Goguryeoic vs. Puyŏ/Koguryeoic)

The Revised Romanization is the standard form of romanization of Korean today, and the 부여 kingdom is commonly romanized as "Buyeo" today. McCune-Reischauer (Puyŏ) is considered outdated and no longer in use outside of North Korea. "Goguryeo" is widely accepted as the standard romanization for 고구려, so it should be "Goguryeoic", not "Koguryeoic", that would be akin to spelling "Koreanic" as "Goreanic". Ktaec (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

See #Requested move 18 September 2019 above. If the topic of the article was "Languages of Buyeo", you would be perfectly right. But "Puyŏ languages" is a scholarly construct and should be spelled in the same way as in the relevant sources written in English. –Austronesier (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not how words are romanized. Wikipedia policy is to use the names used in English-language coverage of the topic. "Goguryeoic" would be a complete invention. Kanguole 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with @Austronesier and @Kanguole. But in fact, the term "Goguryeoic" exists [1][2] (some other sources exist), but is very rare and only refers to the Goguryeo language, not the Buyeo languages.

Best regards, Rishāringânu 17:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)