Talk:Koch dynasty
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Low|history=yes|history-importance=low|bengal=yes|bengal-importance=low|assam=yes|assam-importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
|algo = old(365d)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 1
|archive = Talk:Koch dynasty/Archive %(counter)d
}}
Dynasty policies
These [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koch_dynasty&type=revision&diff=1099600363&oldid=1099599559 edits] are not related to the Koch Dynasty, but to some policies a particular king had implemented. This does not belong here, but in the rightful sections in the historical sections of either the Bodoland Territorial Region or Rajbanshi people. Chaipau (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Bengali as a common language in Koch dynasty
{{ping|Chanchaldm2}}, {{ping|CharlesWain}} The source that you provided, that mentioned Bengali to be the court language actually refers to Kamtapuri. Kamtapuri is often called a dialect of Bengali. Therefore it is misleading to mention Kamtapuri and Bengali as different languages used in the kingdom when the source refers to a single language. (Bengali did indeed become an official language after it was adopted in the 20th century in Cooch Behar State.) How do we resolve this? {{ping|Chaipau}} Msasag (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{talkquote|However, there is no way that Sanskrit could become an official language or lingua franca. So Naranarayan adopted Bengali in his court as 'official language'. It was continued by his successor and Bengali got modified form during the reign of Prana Narayan. His diplomatic letters sent to the Ahom king give some sense of the official language of the Koch kingdom.37 Subsequently, Bengali became the common language for diplomatic and official exchanges between Cooch Behar and Bhutan. 38 The increasing use of non-tribal vernacular by the Koches in their offices, courts and external affairs, led the tribal people to get acquainted with the Bengali language. The process of linguistic-sanskritization was thus accelerated by the 'state- patronage' to non-tribal standard languages.}} - That's what written in the source of Barman; I can't understand why you are removing this again and again. I can't find what you mentioned about Kamtapuri language in the source.CharlesWain (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::This source simply mentioned Kamtapuri as Bengali, as Kamtapuri is often called a dialect of Bengali. As mentioned by Toulmin 2009: {{talkquote|Sociocultural ideology plays a key role in differentiating ‘languages’ and ‘dialects’, and the same is true in the KRDS situation. First, the general Bengalis—those from the south of Bengal—in large part consider KRDS to be ‘a dialect of Bengali’. As this sociocultural group occupies the dominant position of power within the state of West Bengal, it is their linguistic ideology which has governed official policy. Second, a good number of KRDS speakers in West Bengal ideologically understand themselves to be speaking not ‘Bengali,’ but ‘Kamta’ (or ‘Rajbanshi’ or ‘Deshi’ depending on their political persuasion,}} Msasag (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Toulmin is discussing about KRDS lects.The linked article in our article starts with this line: "Rangpuri (Rangpuri: অংপুরি Ôṅgpuri or অমপুরি Ômpuri) is an eastern Indo-Aryan language of the Bengali-Assamese branch, spoken in Rangpur Division in Bangladesh, northern West Bengal and western Goalpara of Assam in India." I don't understand why you are keeping Assamese but removing Bengali, that doesn't seem neutral WP:POV ! You can't add OR or synthesis in article, nor use this type of logic to remove a well sourced content. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Rangpuri is one of the KRDS lects (page: 7, Toulmin 2009). The article Rangpuri language includes several of the KRDS lects excluding Rajbanshi language, Surjapuri language and some of the Goalparia dialects. We can link it directly to KRDS lects, that's not a problem. The problem is with putting two languages while it is a single language (i.e, KRDS lects), being called by different names. Barman called it "Bengali". Now coming to your concern: "I don't understand why you are keeping Assamese but removing Bengali, that doesn't seem neutral". Firstly, I don't know what relation you're making between these two languages that if we add one, we have to add the other too. The question is like asking "Why is Assamese not mentioned as a language used in the Kingdom of Sikkim, but Sikkimese is?" It's not valid. Half of the Koch dynasty as Assamese speaking. Bengali was spoken in parts of Mymensingh and south of Rangpur when those areas were briefly conquered by Koch dynasty. But the primary Indo-Aryan languages were Kamtapuri in the Western part and Assamese in the Eastern part. In the western part, Assamese was a patronised language but not a spoken one. Msasag (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::The thing that is not "valid" here is your OR. Austronesier is right in pointing out "literary Bengali" part. Rup Kumar Barman has written on the same page(27): {{talkquote|Linguistic sanskritization in the Koch kingdom was further stimulated because of encouragement given by the state to translations of religious literature into Bengali and Kamrupi.}}. Hope you understand ! Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Kamrupi refers to Assamese here. Check page no. 28: {{talkquote|Sankardeva wrote extensively on the Vaishnavism in Kamrupi during the reign of Naranarayan. Sankardeva began his writings with the Harish Chandra Upakhyan and Rukmini Upakhyan. His Nimi Narashiddhi Samvad is a doctrinal commentary based on Book XI of the Bhagavata. His Bhakti Pradip and Anadi Patan are based on Garuda Purana and Bamana Purana respectively. Sankardeva popularized his teachings among his followers also by composing ankiyanat and kirtana.}} These are all written in Assamese (in Early Assamese to be precise). Msasag (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Kamtapuri is generally understood a cover term for a Indo-Aryan variety in India that is either considered a dialect of Bengali (together with the local vernacular variety of Rangpur in Bangladesh) or constituting a language of its own right by virtue of linguistic distance from literary Bengali and sociolinguistic considerations. Given the status of Kamtapuri as a mainly spoken vernacular, do we have any reason to believe that any mention of Bengali as a literary language should refer to anything else than literary Bengali? That's not only OR, but also not quite plausible. –Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::There's no relation between the present socio-political status of a language and whether or not it was used as a literary language in the past. Also that a "dialect" can also be used as a literary language (any form of a language can be called a dialect, including standard language). Barman mentioned the court language to be "Bengali" because he considers Kamtapuri to be Bengali. Basically he called Kamtapuri as Bengali, like many people do. Msasag (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sure, every language variety can become a literary language, provided it actually does become one. Barman talks about the court language, i.e. the medium of communication between elites. You can not draw any reverse conclusions from the tagging of the spoken Kamtapuri vernacular as "Bengali dialects" about the nature of the court language in the past when an author refers to it as "Bengali". If you had a source that referred to the court language at least specifcally as "North Bengali" (if not Kamta, Kamtapuri or Kamatapuri) instead of generically as "Bengali", your interpretation of Barman's text wouldn't rest on OR alone.
:::::But one thing should be clear: if Barman's "Bengali" refers to literary Bengali and not to an early literary form of Kamtapuri, Bengali should not be listed under "Common languages" when it obviously was restricted to external and internal communications among political elites. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Add: I have found an important passage in Toulmin (2009) that supports the literal interpretation of Barman's "Bengali" as Bengali in the narrow sense: {{tq|"As I have undertaken this reconstruction of linguistic history it has struck me that patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings—rather than the mother tongue of their subjects—during the middle and modern KRDS periods is a major reason why these lects have been subsequently accorded the status of ‘dialect’ of either Bangla and Asamiya (p. 248)"}} (emphasis added). Thus, Toulmin explicitly writes that it was not "the mother tongue of their subjects" (i.e. KRDS, especially Kamtapuri) that was used by the elites, but Bengali. –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here's a source that describes the distinct characteristics of the language used by poets of Coch Behar, from this book, page ৩৩ (33): {{talkquote|The language of the texts, composed by the poets of Coch Behar and around (some poets hailed from Kamarupa) also shows striking similarity. It represents the dialectal peculiarities of the form of Bengali that was prevalent in North eastern part of Bengal from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, and as such, it shows striking affinities with the Assamese language in vocabulary as well as in phonology and morphology. As a matter of fact, it is pretty difficult to make any clearcut distinction between the language employed by these poets and that employed by Ananta Kandali, who is generally claimed to be an Assamese poet.}} This shows that the language used in Koch dynasty literature was local and not the "literary Bengali" of the southern Bengal. One of the poets from Koch dynasty, Pitambar Dvija, mentioned the language he used in his Markandeya Purana (page: ৩৫ (35) of the same book): {{talkquote|Puranadi sastre jehi rohosyo achoy, pondite bujhuy matro, onye na bujhuy. Ekarone shlok bhangi onye bujhibar, nijdesh bhasha bonde rochiyo poyar.}}which means "Only the learned people (pandit) understand the mysteries present in shastras like the puranas, other people don't understand it. So that others understand it too, translate the sholas into the "own country's language"." Pitambar was asked this by Chilarai (mentioned in the same page). It says that Pitambar used the local language of his own place (nij-desh) to compose literature. Also note that Kamtapuri is often called the "Deshi language" (page: 6, Toulmin 2009). Msasag (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Don't put Misleading edit summary to remove well sourced content. No one agreed to your removal of well sourced content. You put misleading edit [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1275851331 summary] previously, please stop this. Part of the quotation you added is WP:FRINGE. DON'T add it again! Chanchaldm2 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Chanchaldm2, both Assamese and Bengali as standardized languages became defined in the colonial times. We have to be very careful in making these claims and projecting modern Indian languages (MILs) back to times before they actually came to be.
::::::::It is also known, and also noted in the current literature, that the standard Bengali (of Kolkata) was projected on to the languages far away from Kolkata - including North and East Bengal. There was an effort to do this in Assam and Orissa as well. If people from North Bengal today consider themselves as Bengali - that is a current political position. The linguistic position, OTOH, is given clearly in Toulmin - a king from near Guwahati in Assam resettled his capital in Kamatapur in the 13th century and this enabled the "independent" development of its own regional vernacular - but because of political reasons this vernacular did not develop a standardized form during colonial times - unlike Assamese, Bengali, Hindi, and Nepali. So these vernaculars became the "lower" varieties of these different diglossic communities.
::::::::I believe Wikipedia should, for WP:NPOV purposes, and not give in to modern political/linguistic/nationalistic projects. The claims in the previous paragraph are all cited in different Wikipedia articles.
::::::::FYI, @Austronesier, @Msasag, @Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, Chaipau. Yes, I agree with you that "both Assamese and Bengali as standardized languages became defined in the colonial times." And I believe any mention of these is anachronistic projection. We may mention particular dialects though (as explained by Toulmin), which are now claimed to be either either dialect of Assamese or Bengali.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The status of Kamtapuri/KRDS and that of "Kamrupi" are different. The former is claimed as a dialect by some sources and an independent language by others. As Toulmin put it, many native speakers consider it as a distinct language, and many Bengali speakers call it a dialect of Bengali (page: 8). KRDS is also recognised as an official language in West Bengal. So there's no question of considering it as "a dialect of Bengali". For Assamese, we should put it as "Assamese" (as many sources do) because the Kamrupi dialects spoken in parts of Lower Assam are not considered as a distinct language. Just like how Khulna Bengali or Bakura Bengali aren't considered as distinct languages. So there's no reason to put it separately. The other reason is that the Koch dynasty was spread upto Kolong river in Central Assam (Nagaon) (Nath 1989, page: 87), where the Central dialects of Assamese are spoken. At times, Koch dynasty extended even upto Lakhimpur where Eastern Assamese dialects are spoken. So there's no need to put any specific dialects. Moreover the classification of these dialects are also modern. We don't have any source that classifies Assamese dialects from the past. Msasag (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Quote from Juan-{{tq|This method is now applied to the reconstruction of phylogenetic relations within a small subgroup of New Indo - Aryan (NIA), which for historical reasons (outlined below) is termed the Kamta subgroup. The lects within this subgroup, spoken across northern Bangladesh, western Assam, northern West Bengal, north - eastern Bihar, and south - eastern Nepal, are known by a variety of names, including Rajbanshi, Rangpuri, Deshi, Surjapuri, Dhekri, Kamrupi, and Kamatapuri. For ease of reference, this group of names will be referred to below as KRDS (Kamta, Rajbanshi, Deshi, Surjapuri). Synchronically, the KRDS lects within this subgroup are quite similar to each other, though nonetheless differentiated in phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon.9 The subgroup is geographically situated between the speech zones of Asamiya (Assamese), Bangla (Bengali), and various Bihari lects including Maithili (Map 27.1 ). The lects are often claimed by Asamiya speakers and scholars as dialectally subordinate to Asamiya, and by Bangla speakers and scholars as dialectally subordinate to Bangla. In certain sections of the speech community, speakers claim their lect to be a distinct language called ‘ Rajbanshi; ’ others agree on its independent status but call the language ‘ Kamta ’ or ‘ Kamtapuri; ’ still others refer to it generically as deshi bhasha , ‘ local language. ’}} (page 508) {{TQ|Phonological and morphological comparison of cognate forms in eight (geographically defi ned) KRDS lects, and comparison with the related language history of Bangla and Asamiya, yields f i ve linguistic innovations that are common to all eight KRDS lects, and which are diagnostic of propagation events based on the complexity and ecological distinctiveness of the changes (see further Toulmin 2009 : section 7.3)}} (page 508) Again, {{TQ|The fact that these innovations are not shared with the neighboring lects (Bangla and Asamiya), however, is evidence that the ancestral proto Kamta PNetwork was distinct from proto Bangla and proto Asamiya PNetworks.}}(Page 509). {{TQ|Sociohistorical records are not explicit regarding the timing and pace of the language shift from Tibeto - Burman to Indo - Aryan. Nevertheless we may surmise that a major factor in this regard was the shift of the ancient Kamrupa seat of government from Guwahati (to the east in today ’ s Assam) to Kamatapur (near Cooch Behar in Map 27.1 ) around AD 1255. 10 Prior to this, the capital had been located near Guwahati, and had been a driving force for Aryanization of speech in the Brahmaputra valley (Clark 1969 : 197). The capital was the center, both religiously and politically, from which Aryan infl uence radiated outwards. The shift of capital westwards to Kamatapur in the thirteenth century established a new center of cultural infl uence, and must have given a great impetus to the Aryanization of the Tibeto - Burman peoples in this region. Geographically located at the heart of what would become the KRDS - speaking area, Kamatapur as capital would have been a point of social reference for the surrounding villages, and a force for social integration, to a degree that Guwahati as capital had not been, on account of its considerable distance to the east. It is sociohistorically plausible, therefore, that Indo - Aryan infl uence greatly increased in the KRDS area after the change of capital and that this increased Aryanism gave rise to the proto Kamta speech community and its language (see further Toulmin 2009 , section 7.3.1.1). This historical event provides a terminus post quem of AD 1255 for the proto Kamta PNetwork and PDLanguage. The second event which is relevant to dating these changes, and which provides a terminus ante quem for the proto Kamta PNetwork is the expansion of the Kamta Koch kingdom in the mid - sixteenth century. In the present day, the fi ve innovations described above are distributed as far west as Morang of Nepal, and as far east as western Assam. The sociolinguistic conditions for a propagation over that area were absent both before and after the Kamta - Koch sociopolitical expansion of the sixteenth century. It is sociohistorically most plausible, therefore, that the unique proto Kamta changes were innovated before the sixteenth - century expansion, and exported throughout the regions occupied by the Kamta - Koch armies (see further Toulmin 2009 , section 7.3.1.2). Accordingly, the proto Kamta PNetwork and PDLanguage is dated by this method as approximately AD 1250 – 1550. This dating hypothesis receives some confi rmation from the letter of Maharaja Nara Narayana to the Ahom king, written in AD 1555, which attests some of the innovative features (see further Toulmin 2009 , 7.3.1.3). 11}} (page 509) There are sources for both, but understand the point we are making here. Thanks. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Now please tell me what point you're making here. Msasag (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I have added more quotations for better understanding and clarification.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You put whole paragraphs from different sources and expecting me to find out your points from here. Please specify the points that you're trying to make. Msasag (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, it's from a single source. And it's explaining evolution of the language in Koch Dynasty , its innovative features, its independent development, and distinctiveness from neighbouring dialects of Proto Bangla and proto Asamiya. Check Chaipau's comment above too. We can't mention modern standardised languages, it's anachronistic projection. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I don't see any part that changes what I had mentioned. I know that Kamtapuri evolved like every language does. That's not a new information to me. We should mention Kamtapuri/KRDS and Assamese. And since this text you put is about Kamtapuri (and not Assamese), Yes we don't have to mention any modern standardised forms of Kamtapuri/KRDS. We will just put it as Kamtapuri or KRDS. Msasag (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, current version is okay. Multiple editors explained what is wrong with your editting. Please see, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@Chanchaldm2, @Msasag, I am reading Barman and the way he uses his terminologies is very confusing. Why does he use "Bengali" and "Kamrupi"? When he uses "Kamrupi", he obviously means a historical version of the vernacular of western Assam. But when he uses Bengali, does he mean the vernacular of southern Bengal (which is standard Bengali) or the vernacular of North Bengal? For all we know he could be calling one of the proto-KRDS lects Bengali in this case, because some do claim KRDS is Bengali. Is Barman one of those? Chaipau (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
{{Od}}@Chanchaldm2 Okay. I guess now I know what you're trying to say. You're trying to say that Kamtapuri is claimed by both Bengali and Assamese today, so we should mention just Kamtapuri, right? But you're missing the point that not just Kamtapuri but Assamese was also spoken in Koch dynasty, and that's confirmed by several sources that we had given. In other words, it's not just the KRDS varieties that are claimed by Assamese that were spoken in Koch dynasty. But non KRDS lects which are considered as Assamese, were also spoken in Koch dynasty, today named as Kamrupi, Central and Eastern dialects of Assamese. These dialects were spoken in their respective regions in much of Koch Hajo. The Goalparia dialects of Assamese are the ones counted in KRDS lects, not others (but also note that the Bongaigaon variety which Toulmin studied was mentioned as intermediate and having ancestry from both proto-West-Kamrupa/proto-Kamta and proto-East-Kamrupa/Asamiya. Page 240). You are also probably confused by the usage of the term "Kamrupi" as one of the names for Kamtapuri. Juan took the information from Toulmin 2009 and Toulmin clarified this (page 6): {{TQ|Kamrupa: Chatterjee (1926) uses this term to refer to the stage of linguistic history which is ancestral to both Asamiya and KRDS. In this study, Kamrupa is used with the same meaning, and it is therefore not considered synonymous with KRDS, which is a distinct historical stage (cf. §7.3.4). A distinct position is put forward by Nirmal Das (2001), who maintains that ‘Kamrupa’ or ‘Kamrupi’ is a more fitting title than ‘Kamta’ for the KRDS varieties. This view is problematic, however, because the term ‘Kamrupi’ is most popularly used today to denote not KRDS, but the western dialect of Asamiya spoken in the Kamrup region of Assam (cf. U. Goswami 1970).}} So this says that the term "Kamrupi" or "Kamrupa" may be one of the terms used to refer to Kamtapuri, but it's more popularly used to refer a dialect of Assamese (the Kamrupi dialects). So we should not be confused. Kamrupi also refers to Assamese even if it sometimes also refers to Kamtapuri. Chatterjee used the term to refer to a common ancestor of both of the languages.
And we are talking about different languages spoken in Koch dynasty and not different names used for KRDS lects. Msasag (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"Subsequently, Bengali became the common language for diplomatic and official exchanges between Cooch Behar and Bhutan. 38 The increasing use of non-tribal vernacular by the Koches in their offices, courts and external affairs, led the tribal people to get acquainted with the Bengali language. The process of linguistic-sanskritization was thus accelerated by the 'state- patronage' to non-tribal standard languages." (emphasis added)- I hope you didn't miss this part from Rup Kumar Barman as it's quoted above already. Your Original Research or implausible argument will not be entertained. Thanks and regards, Chanchaldm2 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Barman didn't make a distinction between Bengali and Kamtapuri and he called Kamtapuri as Bengali. This is evident from his mention of Bengali as being used for literature (page no. 27), since the literary language is considered to be distinct from literary Bengali used in todays South Bengal, as mentioned by https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/169366 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You're going round in circle. We have gone past it. No one is claiming it's language of South Bengal. Rup Kumar Barman clearly suggested Bengali is a commonly used language, and much more frequently used than Sanskrit, as Sanskrit isn't a vernacular language. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1275858993]"However, there is no way that Sanskrit could become an official language or lingua franca. So Naranarayan adopted Bengali in his court as 'official language'." Barman himself explained it in details. I have already given quotations. We should stick to the source. CharlesWain (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::We didn't go past it. Don't lie. We are saying that, for it to be eligible, it should not be Kamtapuri. The source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1275991215 I provided clearly supported that it is not the "Bengali" that we're talking about. This tells that Barman didn't mention Bengali in a narrow sense. Msasag (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Barman is talking about Bengali ! Stop your your OR ! Will request {{ping|Fylindfotberserk|Ekdalian}} to share their opinion as uninvolved editors. CharlesWain (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ping|Msasag|CharlesWain}} the source clearly says Bengali; OR or synthesis (interpretation as a particular dialect) is not acceptable at all! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"An early form of Assamese which like its sister language Bengali is derived from the Magadhi Apabhraṃśa, had established itself in western Assam by the 5th century"- Mainstream scholars generally attest Early Assamese/ Bengali/ Odia in 10th century, Some even go upto 8th Century . Anything more than that is WP:FRINGE. And what do you mean by common language? A language commonly used or a language used by common people's daily communication? From Rup Kumar Barman 's writing it's evident Sanskrit isn't a common language here in the second sense. Why did you keep Sanskrit and remove Bengali? Chanchaldm2 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Pinging {{ping|Malhar1234|Kautilya3|HazarikaDibrugarh}}, to look into this matter and give suggestions. Thanks. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Check these articles- Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Pala Empire; Common languages mean languages used commonly, be it for literary, academic, religious purpose, court usage, as internal or external communication or vernacular usage. There's no rationale behind removing any well sourced content. CharlesWain (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There's a difference between attestation of a language and the mention of a language being spoken in a certain place at a certain time. Don't confuse these two things. Many scholars mention time like 8th century or 10th century to talk about their first attestations, not first appearance in a certain place. You may also confused with categorisation of different evolutionary stages of a language. If one says that Bengali evolved from Gaudi Prakrit, that doesn't imply that Gaudi Prakrit wasn't spoken in Bengal. Driem said "an early form of Assamese" to mean an ancestral form of Assamese. Msasag (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Msasag}} Thank you for the quote from Roy (2008). It documents the use of the KRDS vernacular in literary works, which is very helpful for this discussion. But Barman talks about the diplomatic/political sphere, not poetry. Further, Toulmin is very explicit about Bangla as being the language that was patronized (next to Asamiya) by the Koch court. You haven't commented on this part yet.
:::::::Also, can we have Assamese and Sanskrit as "common languages", when they where also patronized elite languages? A different parameter might be warranted for that purpose which then should also include Bengali per Toulmin and Barman.
:::::::Finally, this is an edit war about content that is not mentioned in the main article text. Any version we have had so far violates WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. –Austronesier (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Toulmin did say that written varieties of Bengali and Assamese were patronised by Koch kings rather than the mother tongue of their subjects. He also mentions that Grierson categorised it as a dialect of Bengali because of: "the absence of a considerable written literature in the lect" (page: 248). It seems he wasn't aware of the literature present in Kamtapuri, which we know from Roy (2008). When Roy mentioned "The language of the texts, composed by the poets of Coch Behar and around (some poets hailed from Kamarupa)" it seems he's talking about all the texts. This would imply that there wasn't any texts in the "Bengali" that we're talking about, and that Toulmin had misunderstood. But I don't know if this is enough. Toulmin does mention a latter in "proto-Kamta" (page: 209) and uses its features to prove his hypothesis while reconstructing this "proto Kamta(puri) language" (which was in fact very well attested according to Roy). Unfortunately as a neglected language, there's not enough work on it and its historical forms are mostly mentioned under Bengali or Assamese tag.Msasag (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|Assam, the name of the state, is of recent origin; and so is Asamiya, the name of the language (Kakati 1972:1-4).}}--GC Goswami, Jyoti prakash Tamuli[https://www.routledge.com/The-Indo-Aryan-Languages/Cardona-Jain/p/book/9780415772945?srsltid=AfmBOorTHYDxMs2EN1frvOGogNOfUBcHurd4f0vga4hnDJM8Si_l-p0R]( page 429). Like many other Languages the language name "Asamiya" was given by British people and was also standardised in British era. Check the quotation from Barman, where he mentioned Kamrupi , not Asamiya. You can't set parameter as per your convenience or just based on whether you like it or not , WP:JUST. Your comment like "...Toulmin had misunderstood" is totally unacceptable. If you mention local "dialect" name that should be for every case, and if you mention main language name that should be for every case too as it is in reliable sources, per WP: NPOV. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Many language names were given in the colonial era. What's your point with that? Kamrupi or Kamarupi refers to Assamese or its ancestral forms https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ljd7nyIwzjYC&q=koch+Kamarupi+dialect+of+Assamese&dq=koch+Kamarupi+dialect+of+Assamese&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdrZWF-cmLAxXQUGcHHbtQNX8Q6AF6BAgJEAM#%20Kamarupi: {{tq|"the pillar inscription from Gachtal, dated saka 1284 (A.D 1362), showing very good specimens of Assamese prose literature in old Kamarupi speech , also proving that the language used in the works of.."}}. It's also used to refer to a dialect of Assamese (Kamrupi dialects): https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yU8nq-C6wnoC&pg=PA37&dq=koch+literature+Assamese+kamrupi+dialect&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT5dKJgsqLAxXKTmwGHa_fOQsQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=koch%20literature%20Assamese%20kamrupi%20dialect&f=false: {{tq|During the early period of Assamese, the dominant kingdom in the linguistic area was of the Koch kings in the west, where Kamrupi dialect was spoken and the poets and the writers from this period hailed from this part.}}. Barman also mentioned that Kamrupi was used by Sankardeva and we know that Sankardeva used Assamese and Brajawali (Assamese with Maithili admixture) for writing, see page 172: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=O3H2EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA170&dq=sankardeva+koch+literature+Assamese&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWsOuC_smLAxWdUGwGHTl3D0AQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=sankardeva%20koch%20literature%20Assamese&f=false, and page 201: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ECxUOSudNGYC&pg=PA201&dq=sankardeva+koch+literature+Assamese&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWsOuC_smLAxWdUGwGHTl3D0AQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=sankardeva%20koch%20literature%20Assamese&f=false. Barman's vocabulary is vague and unreliable. Msasag (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Austronesier}} There's another thing I can add about Barman. Barman mentioned that {{tq|However, there is no way that Sanskrit could become an official language or lingua franca. So Naranarayan adopted Bengali in his court as 'official language'. It was continued by his successor and Bengali got modified form during the reign of Prana Narayan. His diplomatic letters sent to the Ahom king give some sense of the official language of the Koch kingdom.37 Subsequently, Bengali became the common language for diplomatic and official exchanges between Cooch Behar and Bhutan.}} The language of this letter was "proto-Kamta" according to Toulmin (page 209-210): {{tq|This overall hypothesis receives some confirmation from the letter of Maharaja Nara Narayana to the Ahom king, written in AD 1555. The following points of comparison may be made between the language of the letter, and the innovative proto Kamta features dated above as AD 1250–1550... The above analysis of the language of the letter is not intended to be exhaustive; but this much is sufficient to verify that the Maharaja’s letter supports the pre-16th century chronology assigned to...}} he mentioned the linguistic features of this letter to be proto-Kamta features (more in the pages). This again tells us that Barman's usage of the term "Bengali" was not in a narrow sense regarding official and diplomatic usage also. And that Kamtapuri was indeed used in diplomatic and official usage also, in addition to literary usage.Msasag (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think we can add Assamese, Kamtapuri, Koch, Garo, Mech and Sikkimese in Common languages. And if needed, we can make another parameter for literary and diplomatic usage languages which would include Assamese, Kamtapuri, Bengali and Sanskrit. Msasag (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The language name "Assamese" is of recent origin and was given by Britishers, and the language was standardised in British era too. (Check Toulmin, GC Goswami and Jyotiprakash Tamuli). {{tq|Historically, in common language areas such as Kamrup, Goalpara and the old Koch Behar region, Assamese-Bengali dialects (Rajbangshi and Kamrupi) were spoken. 137}}-- Swarup Gupta [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Notions_of_Nationhood_in_Bengal_Perspect/b9SwCQAAQBAJ?hl=en] (page 255) If you want to mention local "dialect" names that should be for ever case here, and if you want to mention modern language name (Anachronism) that should be for every case too. Despite multiple editors telling you not to do original research, you are continuing it and presenting absurd conclusions here. How did you come to conclusion "nijdesh bhasha" refer to only a particular language?! "Desi Bhasha" just means "regional language" and might be used by many poets in mediaeval period to refer to language of their respective regions. For instance, in the early 16th century, the Mahabharata translator (from Sanskrit to then Bengali variety) Srikar Nandy called the language "desi bhasha". As just an editor you can't say things like, "...Toulmin had misunderstood", "..he was unaware...", " Barman's ... unreliable.", about scholars with academically published books/journals. We must edit Wikipedia following WP: RS, not any editor's OR. We can either mention "dialect" names(sourced) Or We can mention all language names- Bengali and Assamese, Sanskrit ( sourced too).Chanchaldm2 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't understand how "Assamese" being a recent origin name from colonial period would matter here and why you're repeating this. Most language names are recent. We indeed have mention of Rajbangshi/Kamtapuri/KRDS, but not as a "dialect of Bengali" because it's recognised as a distinct language. We also have mention of the Kamrupi dialects of Assamese, as Assamese, because Kamrupi dialect isn't recognised as a separate language from other dialects of Assamese. Yes Deshi bhasha indeed literally means "own place's language". I didn't say any different. I just added the information from Toulmin that KRDS lects are still widely identified as the "Deshi language". Msasag (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@Chanchaldm2@Msasag, I am okay as long as every well sourced name - be it dialect or language- is in the article. But it's totally unnecessary to mention anything twice. I will quote from a previous comment in this regard: "patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings—rather than the mother tongue of their subjects..."- We may mention all names in single parameter or in two parameters, but every entry must be once. Taking into account recent comments of all ( Masag, Chanchaldm2, Ekdalian, Austronesier) it seems like we're nearing a consensus. It looks like we are in favour of including every well sourced name. Just confirm this. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I disagree that every entry must be once. I support having Assamese, Kamtapuri/KRDS, Koch, Garo, Mech and Sikkimese under common languages. If we add another parameter to include languages said to be used for diplomatic sphere and/or literature only, then we must mention Assamese and Kamtapuri twice as they're also used for this purpose. I don't think that adding the latter category of languages is important, but if we do, we must mention their usage. If we do it under one parameter then the usage should be mentioned under brackets, eg, Bengali (for diplomatic sphere/external affairs only). Another option I prefer is that we may add the languages used for literary or diplomatic purpose by creating a section in the body text, but avoid that information in the infobox, and only keep the Common languages there. Again, I don't think this is an important information. Msasag (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Multiple editors disagree with you. If you just want to remove/omit well sourced contents, we can't reach consensus. Taking into considerations the comments and quotations put here by you, Chanchaldm2, Austroneiser and me, I must say we should include/keep (along with the common tribal languages)- Kamrupi (source: Gupta, Barman), Sanskrit ( source:Barman), Assamese (Source:Driem, Toulmin), Bengali ( Source:Barman, Toulmin), Kamtapuri ( Source: Toulmin). Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You have missed: Assamese (Mahapatra), "North eastern Bengali dialects" (Roy), Kamrupi dialect of Assamese (Gupta), Rajbangshi dialect of Bengali/Assamese (Gupta), Kamrupi dialect of Assamese (Mahapatra), Assamese (Choudhury), Assamese (Nath). Also note that we provided some of these sources for different topics: commonly spoken, literary, diplomatic sphere. Msasag (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:I think with this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1277127028), we can agree to to keep Assamese, Kamtapuri and the other languages that are already there, except for Sanskrit, in the "Common languages" part in infobox. It'll be the same as the last stable version except for Sanskrit. This discussion is going unnecessary long stretching over the same points. What are your opinions {{ping|Austronesier}}, {{ping|Chaipau}}, {{ping|Fylindfotberserk}} Msasag (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:You mentioned Chatterjee, check [https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=0yxhAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Kamarupi+ 79] page then.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:@Msasag I looked at Toulmin (2009) again. He makes a good comprehensive diagram - according to him, p-Kamta/wKamarupa yields three: p-wKRDS, p-cKRDS, and p-eKRDS. Among the three p-eKRDS is also yielded by p-eKamarupa (proto Assamiya?). Furthermore, the modern lect that p-eKRDS yielded was further influenced by standard Assamiya. Needless to say - this later influence could have happened only after the standardization of Assamese. In contrast, p-GaudaBanga (proto-Bengali) did not influence any of the p-KRDS varieties - though standardized Bengali did influence the central varieties of the KRDS lects. Both standard Bengali and standard Assamese are colonial phenomena. So this we can attribute these influences to the colonial period or soon after.
:As far as the Koch dynasty is concerned, the Koch Bihar group soon became Mughal vassals - and they were likely influenced more by the Mughal cultural affinities. The developed an interest in Bengali during the colonial times - when the British was promoting Bengali to replace Mughal use of Persian for administrative purposes. Among eastern Koch branches, the western most branch settled in the Bongaigaon area - the region where p-eKRDS flourished, which was a product of proto-Kamta and proto-Assamiya. But other branches of the Koch dynasty settled further east - in Darrang, Beltola, etc. - that is in a region outside the influence of the p-KRDS lects. In fact Beltola is pretty much where Sandhya ruled before moving his capital to Kamatapur - the center of the proto-Kamarupa region.
:Chaipau (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Chaipau}} Yeah. I agree with you. Both proto-Kamta and proto-Asamiya were spoken in the Koch dynasty. Therefore we should put both of them. And {{ping|Chanchaldm2}}, please check the original source from Chatterjee instead of mentioning random unexplained references from different sources. Toulmin accurately put what Chatterjee had written. Msasag (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Not thrilled to see all the edit warring and POV pushing going on ! What you're calling stable version isn't actually so. Recently you re-added disputed content in WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS version, it was remain uncontested by involved editor for over a month. We have much long discussion. You can't just add your preferred language, you have to mention other well sourced names to maintain WP:NPOV, which is a basic policy in Wikipedia. No amount of WP:OR, synthesis are enough to deny those. There's a Hindi saying, "kos kos pe pani badle, car kos pe bani.(Translation: Water changes every kos (= 2 miles), speech at every fourth.)" You can't do your own interpretation of dialect and language, and push particular POV in a contentious topic like this. That's a political issue too, since Koch-Rajbanshshi are for long claiming separate Kamtapuri identity and state combining some districts of Northern Bengal and Western Assam. Either we mention particular dialect only (proto form) as suggested by others, or just stick to the reliable sources and mention all languages. I am okay with both - the version before this particular dispute in February, or the version with all names. If you still want to just keep your preferred name, and remove/omit other well sourced name you may go to WP:RSN, and prove that Barman, Toulmin, Sengupta etc are all unreliable! Or accept the sources and just move on. CharlesWain (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::::What I re-added isn't disputed content. {{ping|Chaipau}} also agreed that Assamese was spoken in the western and central parts of Assam between 1515 and 1991 when they were part of Koch dynasty (Koch Hajo, Darrang and Beltala). What you and your vandaliser team wants is "if we can't have Bengali, we shouldn't have Assamese too". Wikipedia doesn't work according to your wishes. There are some obvious facts, such as existence of Assamese in most of the Brahmaputra valley before 1992. You cannot dispute this. There are countless of sources that support that Assamese was spoken here during this period. You people are just mentioning random words from different sources and making your own interpretation. Either without any explanation from those sources or by putting your POV. I'm not putting my "preferred language" there. It's about facts and reliable sources. Imagine saying that Assamese came to exist in much of the Brahmaputra valley since 1992. You cannot ignore the countless of sources supporting its existence and on top of that, the obvious logic that a language can't suddenly appear in a place in a few decades ago, with distinct dialects, influences on and from neighbouring languages and having millions of native speakers. So stop vandalising. There's no dispute over Assamese. There's dispute over Bengali only. Msasag (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::"What you and your vandaliser team wants..." - What did I vandalise? Who are my teams ? Do you have any proof? Why are you not reporting at appropriate place? This is the second time you have come up with nasty personal attack. This is not acceptable at all. You should focus on content, instead of casting WP: ASPERSIONS against editors.CharlesWain (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
{{Od}}{{tq|Historically, in common language areas such as Kamrup, Goalpara and the old Koch Behar region, Assamese-Bengali dialects (Rajbangshi and Kamrupi) were spoken. 137}}-- Swarup Gupta [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Notions_of_Nationhood_in_Bengal_Perspect/b9SwCQAAQBAJ?hl=en] (page 255) Masag, you're wrong in presenting Gupta. Also note that dialect part is debatable [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Handbook_of_Historical_Sociolinguist.html?id=SIWpmWNoB7YC#v=onepage&q=Rajbanshi%20Bangla%20script&f=false](from p508) Since Koches were originally Tibeto-Burman speaking people, and later hinduized/sanskritised per [https://www.jstor.org/stable/44156212 this source], any Indo-Aryan language was not original language of common tribal people. It's because of patronage by the kings and usage by elites , common people get acquainted with the IA languages ( as suggested by Barman and many other authors). Also please don't invent/interpret new meaning what "common languages" mean, just follow other similar articles. CharlesWain, I am okay with including all languages/dialects. But keep single parameter it's the convention for every type of usages in many other Wikipedia articles about dynasties and empires.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:I have quoted Gupta. Where did Gupta mention Kamtapuri? Please quote. I can see Toulmin mentioned Proto-Kamta. I am quoting again a part from Toulmin as quoted by Austronesier previously: {{tq|As I have undertaken this reconstruction of linguistic history it has struck me that patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings—rather than the mother tongue of their subjects—during the middle and modern KRDS periods is a major reason why these lects have been subsequently accorded the status of ‘dialect’ of either Bangla and Asamiya (p. 248)}} Toulmin is very clear about "patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings" which was not actually "the mother tongue of the subjects". Mahapatra and Barman are also talking about patronage of Assamese or Bengali by kings. Again, I am saying you, like said by some other editors in the thread, we don't need your original research about language and dialect. It will make the matter much more complicated. Or should I quote from Juan? I will suggest, We have multiple WP:RS, and we should stick to the reliable sources, and mention all sourced names , as suggested above, and end this deadlock. Thanks.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Coming to the next question, I don't think that we can have Sanskrit as a common language. Maybe we can add another parameter for a literary language if it's important. Assamese was indeed a commonly spoken language as mentioned by Driem 2022 (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6tGLEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA508&dq=Assamese+koch&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAkdHpmsiLAxWPSWwGHXRdJD4Q6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=Assamese%20koch&f=false page 506-507). He mentioned that an early form of Assamese was established in westen Assam (the eastern portion of Koch dynasty) in the 5th century. Many native Tibeto-Burmans culturally and linguistically assimilated. "By 1200, a great part of the Brahmaputra plain had linguistically assimilated to the Hindu colonists". That means they started speaking ancestral forms of Assamese. He further mentions, "Kāmatā later gave rise to the Koch kingdom known as ‘Cooch Behar’ or Koch Bihar. During this period, the still predominantly Bodo populace underwent further Hinduisation and linguistic assimilation to Assamese." So this implies that an Assamese speaking population established themselves in western Assam and by the time of Koch kingdom, many more people from other linguistic groups became Assamese speakers. Msasag (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::By the way I'm concerned about a group of nationalist accounts of a certain orientation who work as a team and make misuse of wikipedia policies, such as 3RR. If one makes 2 reverts, another user quickly makes the 3rd. I also suspect sockpuppetry. Msasag (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@Msasag: Yes, the surge of SPAs mushrooming up is alarming. I'm busy now so I'll chime in later for details, but I am confident we'll reach an agreement among regulars. Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree with @Austronesier. The increase of these SPAs is alarming. Chaipau (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::@Chanchaldm2: Let me make it clear to you. KRDS lects are known by several names and Rajbangshi is one of them (Toulmin 2009, page: 7). We have already talked about this quote from Toulmin, as well as about Barman several times. I'm not repeating this, please check previous replies starting from this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1275991215. Roy disproves Toulmin's claim, so it's disputed. I didn't see patronisation of Bengali by kings from Mahapatra (you can tell the page no.). It's you who is stating unnecessary OR like "Assamese is a new name". And you can quote from Juan. And let me make another thing clear. I didn't oppose Bengali being a language used in the diplomatic sphere. To state a bit OR, Bengali (rather than Kamtapuri) was indeed used by rulers of Cooch Behar State as a medium of communication with the British East India company, which is known from the letters sent by Cooch Behar princely state from the 18th century. But the letters during Naranarayana were in Kamtapuri as clarified by Toulmin. Msasag (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:@Chanchaldm2: Gupta mentions that the Assamese-Bengali dialects which are Rajbangshi and Kamrupi, were spoken in this region. I just added that the Rajbangshi dialect of Gupta is the KRDS lects / Kamtapuri language, and the Kamrupi dialect of Gupta are the Kamrupi dialects of Assamese. Rajbanshi or KRDS lects are recognised as separate language(s) so we put it as Kamtapuri or KRDS lects. Kamrupi dialects aren't recognised as separate language from other dialects of Assamese, so we put them as Assamese. I can't read the Juan source as the pages aren't available. And we aren't talking about the "original languages of the Koch people". We are talking about languages spoken in the Koch dynasty, which existed in todays North Bengal (Koch Bihar) and the Western and Central parts of Assam (Koch Hajo). It's already mentioned by Toulmin and Gupta that Kamtapuri was spoken there and by Driem, Mahapatra, Gupta, Toulmin, Nath and Choudhury that Assamese was spoken there. Some of them also mentioned that these languages were spoken there even before Koch dynasty (Driem, Toulmin etc). Barman's information and terminology is vague. There are sources like Driem and Toulmin who put the information in more details. Roy also gave us information on the characteristics of the language used for literature, that "it belonged to the language of North eastern Bengal and shows striking affinities with the Assamese language in vocabulary as well as in phonology and morphology. As a matter of fact, it is pretty difficult to make any clearcut distinction between the language employed by these poets and that employed by Ananta Kandali, who is generally claimed to be an Assamese poet." This specified that the language was local, that is "KRDS lects" (we can also interpret it that it was a common ancestral form of KRDS lects and Assamese since he mentioned "pretty difficult to make any clearcut distinction") and not the Bengali that we're talking about.
If we keep a single parameter then I suggest to put the languages used for literary and diplomatic sphere only not in the infobox but in the body text creating a section. I had suggested that if we put them under a single parameter then it must be specified that these languages weren't commonly spoken but limited among elites, but it might be a bit messy. Again I don't think it's very important to put this category of languages. Msasag (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} I've been pinged from somewhere in the middle of the thread, but I don't know where to answer now, so I do it at the bottom. (on a side note: does anyone else feel that this discussion has become a complete mess, chronology-wise?)
First a short on the anachronism argument against Kamtapuri: as @Chaipau has pointed out, the same could also be applied to Assamese and Bengali. But nevertheless, using a term retroactively for something that's identifiable as the same thing in the past is what scholars do all the time. So I don't see any point to exclude "Kamtapuri" as an "anachronism" when same issues exist for "Assamese" and "Bengali".
We have good sources that mention Assamese and Bengali as patronized elite languages. For Bengali, one source might be interpreted as using the term in wide sense, while another unequivocally distinguishes between Bangla and KRDS/Kamtapuri. Also, we have good sources that mention KRDS/Kamtapuri and Assamese as the Indo-Aryan vernaculars in the domain of the Koch dynasty. We even have sources that show that a KRDS vernacular was used to produce literary works, althogh this cannot be taken in support of the claim of that the mention of Bengali as patronized elite languages by Barman and Toulmin can only refer to KRDS/Kamtapuri an nothing else.
Like, Msasag, I don't feel strongly about how we should lable this gamut in the infobox although I maintain that "Common languages" is not an ideal lable (regardless of the fact that the same happens in other articles—that's OTHERSTUFF).
Finally, the major issue of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE has not been addressed at all yet. Do y'all care more about the quality standards of Wikipedia or about identity politics? I will blank the language parameter in the infobox within the next seven days if the main article text won't get a (sub-)section dedicated to the languages spoken in the domain of the Koch dynasty. –Austronesier (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Austronesier}} I agree with you. I had suggested this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1276363149. The discussion after that was mainly about whether or not Assamese was spoken in Western and Central parts of Assam before 19th century (Darrang kingdom came under British Raj) and 20th century (Beltola kingdom became part of India) when the Koch dynasty ended in Assam. As you can imagine it wouldn't make sense if Assamese had suddenly emerged in most of the Brahmaputra valley with unique dialects, millions of native speakers and hundreds of historical Assamese writers born in this region (clearly there are countless of sources claiming the existence of Assamese in this region). Yet they were insisting that Assamese wasn't spoken in this region before the end of 20th century by misinterpreting different sources and made this mess. We should stop this. There's no point in going any further in this talk page. Msasag (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:@Austronesier, I am fine with your suggestions. These editing conflicts, OR, synthesis and interpretation (or misinterpretation) of sources made it hard to address the important issue of Infoboxpurpose. Considering complexity of the issues like, multi-ethnic population in the kingdom speaking different Tibeto-Burman dialects, early or proto froms of Indo-Aryan dialects, and evolution and development of the dialects from late mediaeval period to colonial times with neighbouring influences, it is necessary we mention the particular contents from RS with context in relevant (sub-)section/s only. Over simplified presentation in infobox is kind of misrepresentation here violating infobox purpose, and is leading to so much conflicts, so blanking is a good option. If one must, focus on article body first. History is not like mathematics; here two and two do not necessarily add up to be four; Scholars often have different (sometimes conflicting) opinions, and we must present all well sourced views to maintain NPOV; that's one of major purposes of WP. Thanks. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
:@Austronesier, I agree with your suggestion. Please blank out the language parameter in the infobox and then settle the issue in sub-section dedicated to the language. The sub-section itself would not be easy, is what I suspect, but it seems to be the only way to go forward. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
It is necessary to resolve the dispute between Assamese and Bengali languages in Koch Kingdom's language section.
For an extended period of time, a dispute has arisen about whether Assamese and Bengali should be included in the common language section or not. The basic functionality of Wikipedia is being destroyed by this. Urgent resolution is necessary for this conflict. HazarikaDibrugarh (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on sources
Let us use this space to discuss some of the sources. I would like to begin by asking what Barman means by "Bengali". Does he mean the Southern dialect which became Standard Colloquial Bengali, or the northern dialect, which some claim is Bengali whereas others claim is a collection of KRDS lects? Chaipau (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
:It seems Barman made no difference between Kamtapuri and Bengali and called both of them as Bengali. I checked his reference to another work of him http://hdl.handle.net/10603/149146, where he mentioned that the language of a 1555 AD letter from Koch king Naranarayana to Ahom king to be "Bengali" (page 177). Toulmin (2009) identified this letter to be proto-Kamta instead (page 209-210). We also know from Roy (2008) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koch_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=1275991215 that the literature from Koch dynasty was not in southern Bengali, but in a local "Bengali" and that it was "pretty difficult to make any clearcut distinction" between this language and Assamese. Msasag (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. I have verified Toulimin. Specifically, Toulmin finds that the linguistic innovations found in the 1550 letter are those that he had reconstructed for proto-Kamta, attributed to the period 1250-1550. Toulmin writes: "{{tq|The following points of comparison may be made between the language of the letter, and the innovative proto Kamta features dated above as AD 1250–1550}}" It makes sense - it is known historically that Vishwa Singha decided to set up his capital in the capital of the erstwhile Kamata kingdom - he in grabbed the legacy and legitimacy of the Kamata kingdom. He also did not occupy a vacuum - his capital has had a few centuries of Indo-Aryan growth (proto-Kamta). And Naranarayana's letter was too soon for further growth of the proto-KRDS lects. I also note that Barman is a historian, not a linguist. I cannot defend him as reliable when he claims it is "Bengali". We cannot use this claim from Barman. Chaipau (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@Msasag, Roy (2008) actually is a quote from Sashubhishan Dasgupta - "Dasgupta, Dr. Sashibhushan, A Descriptive Catalogue of Bengali Manuscripts, Cooch Behar State Press 1948". Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks @Chaipau for pointing out that the information actually comes from Dasgupta. Msasag (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:First of all, I want to clear one thing first. Bengali dialects are broadly classified into 4 or 5 categories by scholars like Suniti Kumar Chatterji, Sukumar Sen, Muhammad Shahidullah, and there's no such thing as "Southern Bengali" dialect ! South Bengal is geographically very wide from east to west, and there are much more vernacular dialects in Southern Bengal than in Northern Bengal. There are at least 17 sub-dialects of Bengali; Shahidullah has pointed out 17 sub-dialects to write the line - " A man had two sons." in Bengali.
:Secondly, I am not qualified to judge what Barman meant. But I am quoting couple of lines from Toulmin which may be helpful. In conclusion Toulmin writes, {{tq|The KRDS, Bangla and Asamiya communities have in general not been closed off from one another. That is, while their linguistic traditions are distinct from one another, they are yet intertwined, and not separated.}} Another line first quoted by Austronesier in previous thread from Toulmin, {{tq|As I have undertaken this reconstruction of linguistic history it has struck me that patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings—rather than the mother tongue of their subjects—during the middle and modern KRDS periods is a major reason why these lects have been subsequently accorded the status of ‘dialect’ of either Bangla and Asamiya.}} Thanks @Chaipau. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::Toulmin had said there was an absence of written literature in KRDS/Kamtapuri. While Roy says that the literature was in the form of Bengali of the North eastern part of Bengal and that the language was difficult to distinguish from Assamese. So we have two contrasting statements here. There's another source that reject this claim of Toulmin. Misra (2016) writes (page 53 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44003738?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents) {{tq|In the colophon of the Markandeya Purana, Pitambar says that he was requested by the king to translate the difficult verses from the puranas which can be understood only by the pundits, into the language of the masses so that everyone can partake of the wisdom of the shastras (nij deshbhasha bande raciyo payar). It is obvious from this royal command that whatever may have been the original dwelling place of the poet, the language in which he composed the vernacular texts was the language of the common people of the Koch kingdom.}} Msasag (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::Another thing to note is that Toulmin mentioned "patronisation of Bangla and Asamiya written varieties by the Koch kings—rather than the mother tongue of their subjects". We know from various sources that Assamese was also a mother tongue of the subjects of the Koch kings. In fact Assamese was spoken in half of the region of the Koch dynasty. So it also brings the question of reliability regarding this part from Toulmin. Msasag (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::As just a WP EDITOR, You're no one to judge RELIABLE SCHOLARS ! Please read basic Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN carefully; tired of saying this again and again! Let me quote again what Austronesier has written in the last thread,{{tq|We have good sources that mention Assamese and Bengali as patronized elite languages. For Bengali, one source might be interpreted as using the term in wide sense, while another unequivocally distinguishes between Bangla and KRDS/Kamtapuri. Also, we have good sources that mention KRDS/Kamtapuri and Assamese as the Indo-Aryan vernaculars in the domain of the Koch dynasty. We even have sources that show that a KRDS vernacular was used to produce literary works, althogh this cannot be taken in support of the claim of that the mention of Bengali as patronized elite languages by Barman and Toulmin can only refer to KRDS/Kamtapuri an nothing else.}}
:::Nitish Sengupta(Land of two Rivers) writes, {{tq|This is also an appropriate occasion for noting the important contributions made by the rulers of Koch Bihar in patronizing Bengali language.}} Yasmin Saikia, Amit R. Baishya write (North-East India),{{tq|With the death of Naranarayan the Koch kingdom was divided into a western and an eastern part, where the first came under stronger Mughal and later Bengali influences and the latter under Ahom and Assamese influences (ibid, p. 2783-2784).}}
:::Anyway, Toulmin is a high quality source. I don't need to give logic or quote/s from other sources to validate a scholar! I am not going to waste time by repeating the same things here in this thread. I will wait for other experienced editors, or may be wider participations. Thanks! Chanchaldm2 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::::RS is a wikipedia policy. We should take care that the source is reliable. Two of Toulmin's claims on the same sentence are rejected by other scholars. The source of Sengupta is no different from that of Barman. Let me remind you again that KRDS lects/Kamtapuri is often mentioned as Bengali because it's often counted under Bengali. Toulmin provides a better statement where he separated the 3 languages. The Saikia source doesn't tell about the usage of these languages, it just says "influences". We cannot interpret it to mean "official" or "literary" usage. Msasag (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::@Chanchaldm2, when I say "Southern dialect which became Standard Colloquial Bengali", I obviously mean Chatterjee (1926)'s Eastern Radha Proper - which went on to become Standard Colloquial Bengali. (Today linguist speak of another standard in Bangladesh, but I am ignoring this. See Sameer ud Dowla Khan 2010) Because of his fuzzy use of these terms, I find Barman is not reliable in those portions where he has used these terms and names. I have also noted that he is not a linguist. Chaipau (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@Chaipau, Yes you're right, by Chatterjee's classification Eastern Radha dialect became the base of standard colloquial Bengali. But when it was sanskritised it lost many vernacular touches. For example, Dinabandhu Mitra's Nil Darpan play is based on Eastern Radha region around 1850s, but it is quite hard to comprehend the play for present day's common standard Bengali speakers , even for those who are from this region.
:::And Barman's "Bengali" might be interpreted as "North Bengali" by Chatterjee's classification. As far as I know couple of plays in North Bengali dialect are part of Bengali literature syllabus in West Bengal state board schools. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::As far as I know Standard colloquial Bengali (SCB) in Western Bengal and Bangladesh are almost similar. Vanga/Vangali dialect is spoken in most of Southern Bangladesh, and in Northern part North Bengali (called Rangpuri in Bangladesh) is spoken. Vernacular dialects of Bangladesh is different from SCB. Shahidullah's classification of Bengali dialects is different from Chatterjee's, he put Eastern Purnia to Western Goalpariya region's dialect as "Udichya" (I have to recheck his book). @Zaheen@Alivardi, Could you please follow the discussion thread and give more insights on this? Thanks. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- So much discussions on language on a article about historical kingdom seem unnecessary. I doubt these contents will fit with the article structure. It seems some scholars have used terms "KRDS", "Bengali", "Assamese" in "wide sense", and some in narrower sense; Austronesier has rightly pointed out. But it is apparent that collection of p-KRDS lects/p-Kamta(-puri) was the main/dominant language/dialects of the Kingdom(Kamtapuri is already mentioned), when they shifted from Tibeto-Burman to Indo-Aryan dialects , and Bengali, Assamese (here the terms used in narrower sense) got patronage and influenced KRDS lects over time. Toulmin has discussed about the topic very extensively. If the contents fit with the article structure, then you may go ahead with Toulmin to have sub-section in article body. But IMO, That is not very important, and may be redundant.CharlesWain (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- :Did you again ignore the fact that Assamese was a native language in about half of the Koch dynasty? Apart from gaining royal patronage it was also spoken as a native language in the Koch dynasty. Kamtapuri has the same condition. What I've noticed from your behaviour is that you're fine with not having Bengali as long as Assamese is also not there. But know that WP isn't about your wishes. It's very well-known that Assamese was spoken in Central and Western Assam before the 20th century also and that the unique regional dialects and millions of speakers didn't suddenly emerged in the late 20th century. I've reminded this to you several times even with several different sources. Our focus should be on providing accurate information rather than pushing political sentiments. Msasag (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- :@CharlesWain, you could please blank the language parameter from Infobox (at least for now). I have checked many other Dynasty articles, I think common languages is not essential or ideal parameter. An article is totally fine without it. And we have an agreement after Austroneiser's proposal, for violating Infoboxpurpose. Chanchaldm2 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- ::Chanchaldm2 , I would prefer to wait. If you're going to write any sub-section, just attribute the line(s) to scholar, like " According to Matthew Toulmin..." , to avoid dispute and conflicts.CharlesWain (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- :::To put it clearly, we have clear references for both Assamese and Kamtapuri as spoken as well as literary and official languages in the Koch dynasty. The only disputed language is Bengali. I don't think it should be our mission to find supports for the inclusion of Bengali. Also, the languages used for literary and/or diplomatic purpose only (for eg, Sanskrit) should not be put in "common languages" section as Austronesier had pointed out. I think we should settle this and keep the language section in the infobox as it has been for years, just removing Sanskrit from there. {{ping|Austronesier}}, {{ping|Chaipau}}. I'd suggest to lock the article to prevent vandalisms and edit warring that has been going on since February 13. Especially by one user who started this conflict and several others in different articles (for eg, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durga_Puja&diff=prev&oldid=1275508079) Msasag (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- :::Please no WP:GAME. Chaipau (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
@Msasag, @Chanchaldm2, I find the following evidence from sources:
- proto-Kamta : Narayarayan's letter to Ahom king. Toulmin finds proto-Kamta innovations in that letter and also it makes sense. Vishwa Singha did not establish his capital in a vacuum but in an Indo-Aryan center established earlier around 1250 in the Kamata kingdom (he called himself Kamateshwar-the lord of Kamata). So this is well attested.
- proto-KRDS: Toulmin again.
- Old-Assamese: The presence of Old Assamese is well attested because many precepts and followers of the Ekasarana dharma did settle in the Koch kingdom after their persecution in the Ahom kingdom. The Dasgupta claim also supports the presence of Old Assamese, which might have influenced the literary class of the Koch kingdom.
Now the questions:
- Assamese: The Darrang branch of the Koch dynasty obviously used "Assamese" but before it was defined and standardized, but do we have sources for that?
- Bengali: Bengali was defined and standardized not only in the colonial times, but for colonial purposes, and included without discrimination many local vernaculars including KRDS lects. KRDS is now on solid ground that it has developed individually and had influence from standard Bengali only in recent times (Toulmin). We should not include any reference that mixes up KRDS and its ancestors with Standard Bengali (like Barman). What is the evidence that "Bengali" was a language in Koch kingdom if KRDS lects are not Bengali?
Chaipau (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
:We have several sources for Assamese in this talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-CharlesWain-20250217163600-Msasag-20250217150400, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-Msasag-20250217205200-CharlesWain-20250217163600). I don't remember if any source talks about Assamese (or KRDS) spoken in any specific branches of the Koch dynasty (it has been 13 days since this talk started). For example, Driem talked about further assimilation with the Assamese speakers of the non Assamese speakers during Koch rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-Msasag-20250216204000-Chanchaldm2-20250218135600), and Mahapatra mentioned that the Kamrupi dialect of Assamese was spoken in western Assam when it was ruled by the Koch kings (page 37, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yU8nq-C6wnoC&pg=PA37&dq=mahapatra+Assamese+koch&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWpuH46OiLAxWCavUHHTQKEEcQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=mahapatra%20Assamese%20koch&f=false). The kingdoms/branches in Brahmaputra valley that cover present Assamese speaking areas are: Koch dynasty of Kamata kingdom (Eastern part) [during Biswa Singha, the eastern border was Kapili river in Nagaon district (Nath, p35)], Koch Hajo kingdom, Darrang kingdom and Beltola kingdom. As for the Sidli and especially the Bijni branches, the varieties spoken there are derived from both East and West Kamarupa according to Toulmin. The Darrang kingdom ended in 1826 when Assamese was referred to as "a dialect of Bengalese" by Europeans. And the Beltola kingdom ended in 1947 when Assamese was already defined as a distinct language in the past century (since 1830s). Since we're talking about the Koch dynasty as a whole and not any specific branches, I don't think we have to find if any specific branches are mentioned along with the language. Do we have to differentiate between older and newer forms of the languages? Austronesier and I had agreed to put only the spoken languages under "Common languages". Msasag (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::@Msasag, for some reasons, the links above are not working for me. Let me search for these in the other parts of this page. Chaipau (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:::@Chaipau I've updated them. They should be working now. Msasag (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
::::@Chaipau @Chanchaldm2 I suggest that since the all the languages have evidence of being spoken in the Koch dynasty, the only disputed one being Bengali, therefore the common language section should be reverted to how it has been till February 2025. And remove Sanskrit because it wasn't a spoken language. Msasag (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Msasag, @Chanchaldm2, I agree that Bengali is not attested, given the reconstructions of proto-Kamta and proto-KRDS. Beside these proto languages, Old Assamese (another "proto" language) is also attested. But I would like to hold off on Assamese (by which we mean the modern standard, analogous to Bengali)- even though we have Koch dynasty branches flourishing in the heart of Assamese spoken regions. Chaipau (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::@Chaipau The term "Assamese" includes all the dialects of the language, including the standardised dialect. Since the Koch dynasty ruled over Western and Central Assam and for a brief period, Eastern Assam also during Naranarayana, we can say that all the dialects of Assamese were spoken in Koch dynasty. Some authors did specifically mention the Kamrupi dialect but I'd argue that sources mentioning just "Assamese" are better as Central dialect was also spoken. Standardized Assamese is not the sole representative of "Assamese language". It's just one of the dialects and it's a subdialect of Eastern. Central Assamese or Kamrupi Assamese is not any less Assamese than Standard Assamese. When we say "Bengali" we mean the dialects of Bengali that are not counted under Kamtapuri/KRDS, Sylheti, Chittagonian, Chakma, Hajong and Bishnupriya Manipuri (similarly we're not including Goalparia dialects under Assamese). It's not just "Standard Bengali". If we consider KRDS as a Bengali dialect then we can surely add Bengali on that basis, but we have to remove KRDS or put it as "KRDS dialects of Bengali". The term "Old Assamese" is often used to refer to any form the language spoken prior to colonisation. If you mean Early Assamese then its period ended during Naranarayana (16th century) and we have later forms of Assamese during Koch Hajo, Darrang and Beltola kingdoms which existed during the 4/5 centuries of Koch dynasty. This would include all the forms of Assamese from 16th to 20th centuries (Beltola existed till 20th century). The authors didn't specify any specific forms of the language. It'd be our interpretation to assign the term "Assamese" with any specific form of the language, like "Old" or "Standard". And it's not necessary to do that, since all the forms are equally Assamese. Msasag (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@Msasag, I agree with everything you have said. But I am struggling with this - the notion that there is a language (standardized) with associated dialects is itself a recent formulation that began in colonial times. So we need to stop projecting modern-day dialects into the past to make past lects fall neatly in line with these modern languages.
:::::::Yes, by "Old Assamese" I am including most of medieval Assamese, except those parts that are so very close to Standard Assamese (like the language of the Buranjis). It includes pre-Sankarite Assamese (the literary language of Kamata Kingdom and that of the court of Mahamanikya of the Varaha Kacharis in Nagaon). Now the Kamatapuri language adherents are claiming, quite rightly, that the literary Kamatapuri also derives from this very same language. We also know that the Sankarite and the post Sankarite language too were present in the Koch domains, including the domain of the western Koches. But here too, I would not go by Grierson's arbitrary western/eastern division of the Goalpara dialects because it too reeks too much of colonialism and so I would rather go by Toulmin. But it is for the people themselves to decide, too, which literary tradition to accept or reject.
:::::::Chaipau (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Chaipau The concept that a "language" is a "standardised variety" and which has associated varieties which are "dialects" which are defined by their property of being "non standardised" is not supported by linguistics. A standardised variety is also a dialect as much as non standardised varieties are. Several varieties together form a language. What determines which varieties are included in the language and which are not is generally social factors and is generally based on mutual intelligibility and cultural identity. In case of say modern Assamese, any dialect, be it Standard, or Barpetia, or Morigoya, or Sonowalmese, or Jorhatia, all of them are equally Assamese. If any particular dialect is spoken in a particular area, we can say that Assamese is spoken in that area. It doesn't have to be the standardised form (btw for several languages, like "Arabic", "Tamil" etc, standardised forms aren't even spoken as a native language). In case of the past, there are two things, 1. What did the past speakers from a particular modern dialect speaking area call their variety as? And 2. Did the variety evolve into the modern variety spoken in that area? As for the first question, we know from several sources that they used to call their variety as "local language", so people in the past didn't label their varieties the same way as modern people do. If we need to avoid modern labels, then we have to remove every language from every wikipedia article if the language was mentioned to be spoken there before modern labels were put. For example, we have to remove "Assamese" and "Ahom" language from the article Ahom kingdom because we know that the labels "Assamese" and "Ahom" weren't used during Ahom kingdom. And same should be done in all other articles. As for the 2nd question, this one is more valid. If the ancestor of a particular dialect wasn't spoken in that region, in no way we can put that language or dialect to be spoken there. The solution as wikipedia editors is to put what sources tell us. Sources labelled the Indo-Aryan language spoken in Brahmaputra valley during Koch dynasty as "Assamese" and sources tell us that Assamese was indeed spoken in the region. For the ancestral language, Toulmin distinguished between proto Kamta (aka Proto West Kamarupa) and proto Asamiya (aka Proto East Kamarupa aka Early Assamese) and traces the ancestry of KRDS lects and Assamese from these languages respectively, with East Goalparia (Bongaigaon) being intermediate. Msasag (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Chaipau}} What do you think? Also mentioning User:Austronesier for their opinion this. Msasag (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@Msasag, I might be taking too strong a position on this. Let us hear from @Austronesier. Chaipau (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@Chaipau Even if I agree with you that we shouldn't add Assamese because the language was "Standardised" in the 19th century only, then we have a lot of work to do. Removing any pre 19th century mention of Assamese from all the articles. And since this should be applied to all the languages that have Standardized forms, so it'll be a huge job to remove all mentions of all the languages from different articles in periods before their standardisations. I'll ask @Austronesier, @Fylindfotberserk if we should do that. Msasag (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes - I agree with most of what you say, but I am taking a strong position here for various reasons. But I shall go with either Austronesier or Fylindfotberserk. Chaipau (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@Chaipau What are the reasons? Msasag (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- I can't see any section or subsection being written; Should I blank the label as it was proposed by Austronesier and some other editors?CharlesWain (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- :There's no need to blank it. We didn't find any reason to put Bengali since the sources that say Bengali actually mean Kamtapuri. So it'll be misleading to put Bengali on that basis. The problem with Assamese is that although it's mentioned by various sources, some of the users (including {{ping|Chaipau}}) don't want to put it because Assamese was standardized in the 19th century. Therefore the historical forms of Assamese before 19th century may not be certainly called as Assamese. Although Koch dynasty in Assamese speaking areas existed even in the 20th century, but the user still doesn't want put the language for reasons they don't want to tell. I rather suggest to consider this dispute and apply it on other articles too, by removing any pre 19th century mentions of Assamese from those pages, so that wikipedia has some real values and not work according to like or dislike of different users. Msasag (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::@Msasag, I think you have misunderstood my position. It is certain that some sections of the Koch dynasty did speak Assamese in modern times, and even historical forms of Assamese in earlier times. But we need positive WP:RS to cite. The problem is that the Koch dynasty adopted a language in the Koch area that had developed as a branch of the language in Guwahati that separated in the 13th century and developed its own linguistic features by the 16th when the Koches came to power. Though it is clear that the language had a common historical ancestor with the Assamese the exact situation is not very well defined because a section---the eastern Goalparia---again got very close to Assamese. When this happened, we don't know, but we do have some candidates in historical events that began in the mid 17th century. But what about the Darrang Koches who were even further east? They came to be in the late 16th and early 17th century itself. The closeness to Bengali probably happened in the late 18th and early 19th century. But it turns out that this late closeness to Bengali is not enough to call it Bengali (Toulmin).
- ::Chaipau (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- :::What is "Koch area". If you mean Cooch Behar, then we don't know whether it evolved from the language spoken in Guwahati or from a language variety that was already spoken there. The shift of capital also happened three centuries before Koch dynasty. The "Koch area" also included Koch Hajo (Lower Assam) where Early Assamese (proper) was spoken during the earliest time of Koch dynasty (16th century). Then it evolved into early-modern forms of Assamese in that region. What was spoken in Cooch Behar doesn't matter. It doesn't determine whether Assamese or other languages were spoken in different parts of the dynasty or not. Now, did East Goalparia get very close to Assamese, or was it just a part of the dialect continuum, so it always has been intermediate between Assamese and Kamtapuri (Toulmin also considered it intermediate). But why does it matter? It doesn't deny that other varieties of Assamese were spoken in other parts of the Koch dynasty.
- :::The Bengali influence on KRDS lects of today's North Bengal that happened in the 18th century (as mentioned by Toulmin) also doesn't matter. Kamtapuri is not Assamese, it has been distinct since Koch dynasty started. Both of the languages were spoken in the Koch dynasty and there forever both languages should be mentioned. The sources for Assamese are reliable. Msasag (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::::I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. The Bengali-Kamatapuri issue is straightforward, and I am sure we all agree. The Koch regions did not speak a "Bengali" language till colonialism. But the Assamese-Kamatapuri connection is, OTOH, a little tricky.
- ::::* Both Assamese and Kamatapuri have a common immediate ancestor (?proto-Kamarupa). There is no evidence yet of an Indo-Aryan language in the Kamata capital region before the 13th century. Toulmin starts with ?proto-Kamarupa before the Koches' rise.
- ::::* Assamese lay claim to the Kamata-based as well as the Varaha court (Nagaon) literature from the 14th century. Bengali does not. But now Kamatapuri does claim the Kamata-region based literature as its own. Toulmin did not consider literary sources, which is a current gap in our knowledge.
- ::::So I am suggesting that we be particularly vigilant not assuming things and just keeping to specific claims in WP:RS.
- ::::And to your point, the Darrang region, Beltola region, and even probably the Bijni regions were definitely Assamese even before colonialism.
- ::::Chaipau (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- :::::If you agree that Assamese was indeed spoken in Koch dynasty along with Kamtapuri, why do you not want to keep Assamese as a spoken language? Even if Kamatapuri derived from a variety spoken in Guwahati in the 13th century and was brought to Kamatapur capital region in Cooch Behar district, that doesn't mean Assamese and Kamtapuri remained the same language till 20th century. And you agreed with that. As for the older language spoken in the 16th century when Koch dynasty was founded, Toulmin clearly mentions "Early Assamese" and "Proto Kamta" to be distinct. So we don't have to assume on our own. For the claim for "Kamata-based" literature, it doesn't have anything to do with the languages spoken in the dynasty. We also don't have any sources mentioning Kamtapuri claim over Kamata-based literature. I have seen a proposal for official recognition of Kamtapuri where the author claimed ALL of the non-Ahom Assamese literature to be Kamatapuri. This clearly disputes all of the non Ahom Assamese literature. But going by any reliable source, I haven't seen any claim. And going by original research, I've noticed that there are a few differences between proto Kamtapuri literature (like in the letter of Naranarayana that Toulmin mentioned, works of Pitambar Dwija) and Early Assamese literature (produced by Sankardeva, Madhavdeva and most other authors). Like genitive -er in Proto Kamtapuri and -or in Early Assamese, etc. Toulmin also mentioned this and others as differences between the two. Since Koch kingdom was equally divided between Assamese and Kamtapuri speaking regions, it won't be surprising to find literature in both variety, and historically they didn't see them as distinct languages. But anyways, we should go by sources and not OR. Msasag (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::@Chaipau It seems you want to stick to your opinion without giving reasons. The discussion will not reach a consensus like that. We should either put the data with reliable sources (which we have for Assamese and Kamtapuri, but not yet for Bengali) or we restore the last stable version, which we had for a long time before February 2025, as per WP:STABLE. I'm mentioning @Chanchaldm2, @Austronesier, @CharlesWain for their opinions. I also want to make my stance clear. I support accurate information. If Bengali is to be mentioned, it should be supported by sources that refer to the language in narrow sense. I don't want a source that actually mean the marginalized language Kamtapuri, to be a support for Bengali. Information should not be put just to satisfy some nationalistic minds. It should be accurate, that's what I support. Msasag (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::@Msasag, I think I have stated my position clearly. Let us discuss the changes and the references we want to cite and obtain WP:CONCENSUS thus. Chaipau (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::@Chaipau you didn't reply to why Assamese shouldn't be added even on the basis of Darrang and Beltola branches (although the Koch Hajo region prior to division and branch after division is also applicable). Msasag (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::@Msasag, I have said that if you can cite a reference that says specifically that the Darrang region spoke Assamese before colonialism, then you may. Chaipau (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::@Chaipau I can't find sources that mention the languages for each dynasty of the Koch kingdom. Neither for Assamese, nor for other languages including Kamtapuri. They either talk about the whole kingdom or divide it into Eastern part/West Assam/Brahmaputra valley/Koch Hajo and Western part/Northern Bengal/Koch Behar. The sources that say Assamese was spoken usually put it as "Assamese was spoken in the western part of Assam (or the present linguistic area of Assamese) when it was under Koch kingdom" as in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-Msasag-20250217054100-Chanchaldm2-20250217033600 (mentions Kamrupi dialect of Assamese spoken in Koch kingdom in the western part of Assamese linguistic area). Or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-Msasag-20250216204000-Chanchaldm2-20250218135600 Driem mentioned that there was further linguistic assimilation to Assamese during Koch kingdom in Brahmaputra valley. Nath 1989 (p: 90, 201) mentioned that Assamese became a lingua franca in Koch kingdom and Koch people were converting to Assamese and Bengali speakers during that time. He mentioned the Eastern boundary of Koch kingdom to be Nagaon in Central Assam during Naranarayana and later under Koch Hajo. Msasag (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::@Msasag, yes. I can see that. Since even otherwise seemingly WP:RS sources (e.g Barman) cannot be trusted to say the correct thing, we have to be careful here. It might just be prudent to leave out the language issues out of the infobox. Chaipau (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::@Chaipau There's no issues with information itself. Mahapatra, Driem, Nath etc clearly mention that Assamese was spoken in the Western part of Assamese linguistic area or Western and Central Assam when they were under Koch kingdom. They clearly differentiate Assamese from Kamtapuri (which is called Bengali by most sources). Toulmin is clear about Kamtapuri being spoken in the western part of Koch kingdom (and Assamese in the eastern part). There's no issues with Assamese. It's clearly distinguished from Kamtapuri by the authors. The only issue is with Kamtapuri and Bengali. The authors we have till now do not separate the two as being spoken in Koch kingdom. Most of them call it Bengali because of its recent socio-political status. The "issue with Assamese" is only created by some of the wiki editors in this discussion. According to them, if Assamese is mentioned then Bengali should be mentioned too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_dynasty#c-CharlesWain-20250215150300-Msasag-20250215144400). We should not put information based on the emotions of some wiki editors. Information should be backed by WP:RS. Msasag (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::Please consider we aren't complying with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE; and if we write a section or subsection we need to stick to sources.CharlesWain (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::@CharlesWain, some of the sources are not reliable here. Barman, for example. Chaipau (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::::Fine, it's not the policy of the Wikipedia, but for this particular topic we may refer linguists only. As long as the contents aren't WP:OR, or WP:SYN, and the (sub-)section being written following WP:NPOV, it's okay. For contrasting views,the statement(s) should be attributed to the author(s).Also, WP:AGEMATTERS. CharlesWain (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::::@CharlesWain, what sources do you have? What is your claim that Bengali was a language of the dynasty or the region before Bengali came to be defined? Chaipau (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::::::@Chaipau, I agree with you that there're some sources which may not be reliable in this case. But there're many sources, which used Bengali and Assamese terms anachronisticly; and I believe it's natural since language classification and standardization happened only in colonial period. I will suggest to use Toulmin (quotation given by Austronesier and Chanchaldm2). There're many quotations given in the previous threads, and I am not copying and pasting it here, or bothering them pinging again, since they may be exhausted or not interested in this discussion for extended period of time. [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Bengali_and_Other_Related_Dialects_of_So/lRRYBHQvXdsC?hl=en SS Tunga] discussed about Dheyan language ; part of it relevant to the topic we're discussing here. Thanks .CharlesWain (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::::::@CharlesWain Toulmin didn't say that Bengali was spoken in Koch dynasty along with Kamtapuri and Assamese. The Tunga source also doesn't say that Bengali was spoken in the Koch dynasty along with Kamtapuri. It refers to Kamtapuri as "Bengali". This is clarified when he mentioned that he meant the speech of "Cooch Behar". Msasag (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::::::::I know what they said. And it's certainly not supporting your POV. CharlesWain (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::::::@CharlesWain, could you please provide the Tunga quote and the page number? Chaipau (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::::::::@Chaipau, please check page 73 to 78. If you can't access, let me know. CharlesWain (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::::::::@CharlesWain. I did. In those 5 pages, Tunga said many things. What is the point you are trying to make and which is the precise quote that supports it? Chaipau (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::@Msasag, the Kamatapuri-Assamese relationship is different from the Kamatapuri-Bengali relationship, something known since Suniti K Chatterji. So that equivalence is without basis.
- :::::::::::::What is the objection to Mahapatra, Driem and Nath?
- :::::::::::::Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::@Chaipau Assamese and Kamtapuri are closely related languages and they're often classified under the same branch, as done by Toulmin and some others. These authors (Mahapatra, Driem, Nath etc) differentiate between Assamese and Kamtapuri (which some of them called as Bengali) and they mentioned that both of them were spoken in Koch kingdom. They specified the locations, as Western part of Assamese linguistic area to be "Assamese speaking". So they don't include the Kamtapuri speaking regions under "Assamese speaking". So their distinction between these two languages is clear. We do not have a source that claims that both Bengali and Kamtapuri were spoken in Koch dynasty. I suggest that we restore the section like it has been for many years before Feb 2025 when Bengali was added with the Burman source. Bengali should be added on the basis of a reliable source, which says that both Bengali and Kamtapuri were spoken in Koch dynasty (just like how those sources mentioned above do for Kamtapuri and Assamese). Msasag (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::Please don't make us go round in circle.CharlesWain (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
==Tunga==
@CharlesWain, I have read Tunga, the parts that you referred to, but I do not find any linguistic argument there at all - just some claims. More on the claims later, but could you point me to where else Tunga has described in more detail the situation that he describes in pages 73–78? Chaipau (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)