Talk:Tigrinya language

Romanisation: How about subscript dots for ejectives?

I've just gone thru & normalised the Romanisation thruout, except in the table of signs in the writing system. Currently, ejectives are represented by a consonantal letter sign followed by a tick, as in the IPA. Impressionistically, it seems to me that most scholars who write about the Semitic languages of Eritrea & Ethiopia more frequently use a subscript dot—‹ṣ› rather than ‹s'›—& then ‹q› instead of ‹k'›. This is what a reader will find if they refer to Leslau's Documents Tigrigna or Lane's Tigrinya-English dictionary, or Voigt's Das tigrinische Verbalsystem, or Ullendorf's A Tigrinya Chrestomathy. Mason's grammar & Tesfamariam's textbook both use (different) idiosyncratic systems based on this. Tadross & Teklu's Essential Guide uses an idiosyncratic system quite different from either of these, while Dimtsekal & Tadross' Tigrinya Verb Conjugation uses an idiosyncratic system that's closer to the dotted version. The only major source that I can think of that a reader is likely to use that uses the IPA apostrophes is Tesfay Tewolde Yohannes' A Modern Grammar of Tigrinya, which uses (near typographic approximations to) full IPA—not the mixed system here. Does anyone object to my converting this to the system of Leslau & Kane? (There is one major difference for which I don't think there's much consistency at all in the different sources: the representation of the spirantised velars. For Leslau, these are underlined: ‹ḵ› & ‹q̱›. For Kane, they're ‹ḵ› & ‹q̌›. I'd be inclined to go with Leslau, as the system is consistent & as I think Kane's choice was typographic, but I don't actually care much.) Pathawi (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know much about Tigrinya, and haven't seen any of the works you mention here, but it seems that the standard you propose here and that you introduced with your recent edits on the page is the so-called Ethiopianist transcription, which, for example, was enforced on all authors contributing to the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, and that is also required for contributions to the journal "Aethiopica". Unfortunately, in spite of its wide use, it isn't much of a standard, as people happily use the available symbols in any odd way. This is most notable with the central vowels, as exemplified in your use of the name təgrəññā, which shows the character <ə> as representing a high central vowel, whereas other users happily, and probabably without much consideration, use the same character for the mid central vowel, for which others use <ä>. On top of that, the Ethiopianist tradition leaves uninitiated readers confused, as some of the characters are taken from the IPA inventory, but with differening sound expressions. Therefore, there is a growing number of researchers who see this tradition more as a liability than an asset, and go over to using proper IPA. The more responsible users of the Ethiopianist transcription (not Voigt, for example, but normally Bender, Appleyard and Leslau) provide an unambiguous match-up of their characters with the IPA. I would therefore advocate using IPA transcriptions in Wikipedia wherever possible, that is based on the explanation provided by these authors, even if they use Ethiopianist transcriptions in their data. That wouldn't constitute original research, if you ask me. LandLing 06:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that switching to full IPA wouldn't constitute original research—I'd think that it would be a pretty near analogy of what the No Original Research policy calls "routine calculations". However, neither this article nor Ge'ez however was using IPA before my edits: Both were using multiple Romanisations inconsistently. In this article, the ejectives are currently consistently using the IPA ejective marking (except in the orthographic table at the end), but that's not true of other signs. The article was not otherwise consistent. So for example, before I began editing for consistency, every occurrence on this page of /ɨ/ was represented ‹ə› except for in the Romanisation of ትግርኛ (/tɨɡrɨɲɲa/ or /tɨɡrɨɲːa/), which was represented as ‹tigriññā›. Elsewhere in the page, ‹i› was always /i/, & /a/ was ‹a›—not ‹ā›.

I don't have a strong feeling against use of the IPA, but I do have a few thoughts:

• I think that ‹ə› is actually the only sign borrowed from the IPA by the Encyclopedia Aethiopica-ish Romanisations. I don't know the history of this, tho it predates the EAe by decades (in fact, I think it was borrowed by both Ethiopicists & the IPA from German philological work). Otherwise, I think that most signs are carried over from the set in broad use by Semiticists, including the subscript dots for emphatics.
• If we were to employ the IPA, we would replace the glottal stop ‹'› → ‹ʔ›, the pharyngeal fricative ‹ʿ› → ‹ʕ›, the palatal nasal ‹ñ› → ‹ɲ‹, the palatal approximant ‹y› → ‹j›, the central vowel ‹ä› → ‹ɐ› or ‹ɛ› &—against the version used by Leslau & Lane—the voiceless velar fricative ‹ḵ› → ‹x›. I'm not sure that it would increase legibility for the uninitiated unless they were already initiated into the IPA, which is not something we should expect of most Wikipedia readers.
• The Leslau/Lane version of things helps keep it clear that ኽ ‹ḵ› is a spirantised version of ክ ‹k› (an intervocalic allophone which is orthographically recognised). Shifting to ‹x› would make that relationship less clear. I don't know what we'd do with ቕ (‹q̱› for Leslau) which is the equivalent intervocalic partner of ቅ (EAe-ish ‹q›, current article ‹k'›). Tesfay Tewolde Yohannes' grammar represents it as /x'/, presumably to maintain its allophonic relationship with /k'/ & its positional equivalence to [x] as an allophone of /k/. A voiceless ejective velar fricative, however, is not what you're actually going to hear from Tigrinya-speakers.
• You're absolutely right that there is no standard. However, if a reader goes on from the Wikipedia article to reading work specifically on Tigrinya, I think they're most likely to use one of the sources I listed above. Among these sources, the majority use systems that are close to the EAe. Among those that don't use an EAe-derived system, things are idiosyncratic—there's no alternate recurring system. There is no Tigrinya dictionary or instructional material that uses IPA.
• It's just not that unusual for linguists to use regional Romanisations: It's true for Indological work, Arabic, Hebrew, the Maya languages, Russian… For a great many of the world's languages that don't use Latin script, there's a scholarly standard that's not the IPA. Meanwhile, choosing the IPA doesn't give us a clear guide for how to handle things in Tigrinya. The vowel that the EAe represents with ‹ə› should probably be /ɨ/, but looking at the past twenty years of sources in Google Scholar that mention Tigrinya, I'm not finding a consistent representation of the EAe's ‹ä›: Is it /ə/? /ɐ/? /ʌ/? /ɛ/? I'm not trying to be difficult: I found all four in just a couple minutes. Meanwhile, there is still scholarly work that uses ‹ä›—even within linguistics. Work within fields other than linguistics—Semitistics, history—are far more likely to use the EAe Romanisation than IPA.

That bulleted list probably makes it sound like I have a stronger opinion than I do. My actual strong opinion is that we shouldn't use an idiosyncratic Romanisation, which is what we have right now. The above are many of the reasons that I think that a field-specific Romanisation is the better choice, but I care about that less. I think that either something close to EAe or the IPA would be an improvement. Pathawi (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful explanation. In a nutshell, I fully agree with you, and support any attempt on your part to bring consistency, at least for some time, into the article. I'd lean rather towards using the IPA for that, but I certainly see the problems with that, as you mention them here. Tigrinya <ቕ>, by the way, is a voiceless pharyngeal plosive, as far as I can tell. So go ahead with the Romanization you currently use, if others don't object to this developing consensus. LandLing 18:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is good, and it's clearly helpful to use a transcription that is likely to be found in the sources that an interested reader will consult. I just want to note that we often have problems with "curly quotes" for the glottal stop and the pharyngeal fricative: they often are "fixed" in MOS:CURLY-cleanups even when the material is {{lang}}-tagged. This can be avoided by using {{hamza}} and {{ayin}}, or alternatively by going a bit in the direction of IPA and use ‹ʔ› and ‹ʕ› instead. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for Tig (Tigrinya language)

I have proposed the deletion of the page Tig (Tigrinya language). This page aims to clarify the distinctions between Tigrinya, Tigre, Tigrai, & numerous derived terms. You can find the deletion discussion page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tig (Tigrinya language). Very briefly, I do not oppose some clarification page as such, but rather oppose the invented term tig. I strongly encourage those who are following this page & who have an opinion on the matter to vote or comment at the deletion discussion—whether or not they agree with me. Pathawi (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Tigrinya/Tigrigna

In general, we should be consistent about the use of a version of the name of the language within the article. We should definitely mention the existence of alternate spellings, & of course we shouldn't change spellings in direct quotation. But when we're not quoting directly, we don't need to follow the spelling in any particular citation. Pathawi (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Im not talking about spelling im talking about the link provided for the number of speakers. What im telling you is that it has "E24" when you put the reference number "e24" the page from the link to Ethnologue is blank. There is no reference number e24 that directs to the page for Tigrigna on Ethnologue. The reason i added reference number 25 is because it directs exactly to the page on Ethnologue for the figure of 9.85 million first language speakers. The link provided as the reference doesn't direct to the 24th edition of Ethnologue for Tigrigna but to the 26th edition which has different estimate of 8.62 million first language speakers. So i added reference number 25 as it has the page for the figure of 9.85 million first language speakers. But i think you didnt understand what i wrote in the edit summary or your just trying at this point to revert any edits i make. I dont care if its called tigrinya or tigrigna that was one edit i made because Ethnologue has it listed as Tigrigna and not Tigrinya and you changed it to Tigrinya and i honestly could care about that but what i care is added the correct reference for the estimate of 9.85 million first language speakers. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This isnt about infobox name for the language this is about using the correct reference number. The link provided doesnt does not direct to the 24th edition of Ethnologue but to the 26th edition of Ethnologue. When you remove the link and type in reference number "e24" the page to Ethnologue becomes blank. And so i added reference number 25 as it has the figure of 9.85 million first language speakers that's what im trying to explain to you but you keep reverting it and saying the information has to match the information box. When you out the reference number it will have the name listed like the info box name. For example. Tigrinya is written on the infobox, when i remove the reference link that is already provided and add reference number e25, it will say "Tigrinya at Ethnologue (25 edition 2022)" and not Tigrigna which is the name Ethnologue has listed below. I dont care about whatever name you want to call the language. The problem is that the reference is wrong and the reference number is wrong. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to updating the link! Just to changing the spelling. Pathawi (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Then move the page to Tigrigna or change the name of the Infobox then. The reference doesnt change the name you can. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're saying here, but I don't think it's relevant anymore, as we're agreed on what to link to. I will oppose moving the page, but if you don't care about the spelling then that's a non-issue. Meanwhile, making the link work correctly is. I'm surprised that you accused me of lying, as you know that it's incumbent upon us to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. There are many reasons that people get things wrong other than lying. In this case, however, it seems that we were both right under different conditions: When I'm not logged into Ethnologue, your link does not work. When I log into Ethnologue, it does. You should check this yourself to verify. (& you should be more circumspect about accusing fellow editors of lying.) Pathawi (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

you said in your edits over here [[1]] that reference number e25 doesn't work. Which is a lie and I have accused you of it because you lied in your edit summary over here saying it does not work when it does. You have removed the date and reference number and added the wrong reference link that does not direct to the page with the same number of first language speakers as stated on the info box. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I should have mentioned in my previous comment the assume good faith policy. Again: The link you provide does not work if a person is not logged into Ethnologue. You should try this to verify. I'm pretty sure that the link I provided works regardless of whether one is linked in or not. Is that incorrect? You also seem to want this to be linked to an older version of Ethnologue—25th rather than 26th. Why is that? Pathawi (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the the 26th edition has a DIFFERENT number of first language speakers stated than the one one the infobox. Plus the original 9.85 million estimate from 2020 was accurate because Ethnologue's estimation on language speakers changes also adding reference number 25 directs to the page with the same stated number of 9.85 million first language speakers as stated on the infobox. Also i have logged off and in and it directs to the 26th edition of Ethnologue with the same 8.67 million first language speakers which is different from what's stated on the 25th edition believe me I've checked twice. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Plus i logged off and in again and it is still the same link from the 26th edition with 8.67 million first language speakers as stated on the website and is different from the 9.85 million first language speakers estimate from the 25th edition on Ethnologue. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why we would have different experiences of accessibility when logged out. That's very odd. I've now tried this three times with the same results. Why do you want the 25th edition number rather than the 26th? Pathawi (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Its hypocritical that you changed the number of first language speakers just because i added reference number 25 and added up first and second language speakers without even a date just to have your link there. You have been reported for vandalism. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with being reported for vandalism: I don't think that anyone's likely to consider this disagreement vandalism. I am perplexed as to why we would have different experiences of following that link: As I've said, I've tried this three times with the same results. It would be interesting to see what others with Ethnologue accounts experience. That issue may be moot, however: I'd like to discuss the E25/E26 choice. I changed the numbers for consistency after you pointed out that they were different. The E26 numbers are SIL's 2023 estimate. Why wouldn't we prefer these over the E25 2022 estimate from the same organisation? Pathawi (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

When logged in it still directs to the 26th edition of Ethnologue and not 25th edition with a different estimate of first language speakers than the one from the 25th edition which was earlier written on the infobox with the wrong reference at the time. You then removed reference number e25 which was was the right reference to direct to Ethnologue with the same figure of 9.85 million first language speakers. You removed the whole thing and changed the number of speakers and removed the date and adding the entire number of speakers first and second langyage users combined just to have your link put there. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The link https://www.ethnologue.com/25/language/tir/ does not work for me when logged out. It might be related to one's geolocation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I have the same experience. I am currently located in Ethiopia. LandLing 16:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I am confused about the conversation we're having here. I think part of it is that you are assuming intentions on my side that don't make sense to me, & part of it is that I can't figure out why you want the E25 numbers rather than E26. It is absolutely correct that the number was the E25 number, & I added the E26 link. When you pointed that out, I corrected the number to the E26 number. You're also right that I got the E26 number wrong: That I added the total number rather than the L1 number, which would have been correct. I'm totally fine with changing the 8.83 to 8.67—in fact, I think that's what should happen. Is this acceptable to you? Do you still think that the link to Ethnologue 25 is preferable? If so, can you say why? Pathawi (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ba-dum ching! Pathawi (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You literally changed the whole thing just to have your link put there. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The part with the accusations probably isn't a useful conversation: You've made the accusation & you've filed a vandalism complaint. If something's going to happen to punish me, you've taken the steps. With regard to the content of the article, are you okay with using E26 numbers? Pathawi (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ironic and bold for me to be punished for adding the right reference number when of all people you removed it than added your link removed the number of speakers and date and added a different number of speakers that includes both first and second language speakers without even a date. I discussed with you everything yet you still insisted to have the wrong link added and when you found out this you changed the number of first language speakers. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have not asked for you to be punished & have no intention of doing so. But would you please answer this content-related question: Are you fine with using the correct E26 number? By 'correct', I mean the L1 number, as you've noted—not the total number which I added. Pathawi (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if the old estimate of 9.85 million with the date and reference number be added back. But if they want to add the 26th edition they can but at least add the correct number of first language speakers. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to change the number of L1 speakers to reflect what's in E26 as a provisional step forward, as I think that we're both agreed that that's preferable to the current state of affairs. (If you'd like, you can change that number.) You've now confirmed below that you'd prefer to use the E25 numbers. Could you please explain why you'd prefer the older edition's data? Pathawi (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because i believe that to be the preferable number of speakers too avoid any bias towards population estimates for number of speakers. The date should also be added as with all languages so people can know the date year for how many people speak this language. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with including the date. (I had removed it because the citation format I used includes publication date.) Can you explain why you think that the E26 numbers are more biased in population estimates than E25? Pathawi (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the estimated number of Tigringna speakers in Eritrea changes according to population estimates as with the other languages. The estimate is not permanent and is temporary to fit the 3.6 million population estimate for Eritrea from a differenrt source than the World Factbook. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that the estimate is not permanent. What I'm not following is why the older estimate from the same source would be preferable to the newer. (Doesn't it follow from the fact that these estimtes aren't permanent that we should expect new estimates?) I have no idea why the number of Tigrinya-speakers in Eritrea changes between E25 & E26 (can you tell how they get these data?), but for speakers in Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, & the UK, the E26 numbers reflect more recent censuses. E25 omits Tigrinya-speakers in the US, but they're included in E26. While I don't generally have much faith in Ethnologue's population numbers, for these cases it seems that the more recent data should be more reliable. Pathawi (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe the older estimate to be the correct estimate as I believe it to be the right number as based on the World Factbook's estimate as because stated Eritrea has never conducted a national census of the population so given the larger number of speakers would be authentic and look more authentic. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethnologue's estimation for Tigrinya speakers actually includes mainly population figures from Ethiopia and Eritrea. There is no one source that gives the same population estimate for the number of people in Eritrea. One source says that Eritrea has 3.6 million people in 2023 and another that it has 6.2 million people. Figures for language speakers and ethnicity in Eritrea change according to the population of the country being presented by different sources. It would be better if the 9.85 million first language speakers be restored because it looks authentic in number and also given that likely in the next edition of the Ethnologue it will mention probably 9.9-10 million first language speakers of Tigrigna. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Query. Is Ethnologue a paywalled service? Because I don't see any information on numbers of speakers on the page without logging in. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes you have to have membership in order to access information for number of speakers. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is. It didn't used to be, but it has been for a few years now. If you submit data as a volunteer, you can get free access for a year. The normal access cost, however, is expensive enough that even my fairly well-funded US university won't pay for it. Pathawi (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

In the past, Ethnologue provided different access levels based on geolocation (free access for users from developing countries). This might still be the case. –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier That's not gonna help me without lying my way through a VPN. It also means there's no practical way to evaluate the sources, except for those editors who have Ethnologue access. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I have only mentioned this as a possible explanation for the different viewing experiences when logged out, as becomes apparent in the above discussion.

As for the use of this paywalled source, many WP editors in good standing who actively edit language-related topics have Ethnologue access, so unsupported changes usually get quickly spotted. –Austronesier (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier Thank you for the info on level of acceptance. I'll leave other editors to vet the accuracy. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This becomes a somewhat bigger problem: Wikipedia uses Ethnologue as a source pretty extensively. (I wish that we would not consider Ethnologue a reliable source, but this has been discussed pretty extensively & my viewpoint isn't the prevailing one.) In principle, I'm not sure it's all that different from citing books that are hard to access. There are, fortunately, enough Wikipedia editors with Ethnologue access that there are usually multiple people who can verify any particular datum. In the present instance, Cookiemonster1618 (talk · contribs) & I don't disagree about what Ethnologue says, so I don't think we have a verification issue. I made two mistakes: First, I added a link to the 26th edition when the number listed was for the 25th edition; then, I attempted to correct the number, but used the number of total speakers rather than the number of L1 speakers. The outstanding issues seem to be: 1) That Cookiemonster1618 believes I did this in bad faith. They have filed a vandalism report because of that. I don't know that there's more to discuss, but it seems to be getting in the way of: 2) I think from previous comments that Cookiemonster1618 wants to use the 25th edition number of L1 speakers rather than the 26th edition number. I may be wrong about this, in which case no substantive issue remains. Pathawi (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes i want the 25th edition with the first language speakers added with the date. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Pathawi that the 26th edition is to be prefered, as being the more current one. I'm not convinced by the reasons stated in favor of the 25th edition. I don't even understand them. Why do you assume that Ethnologue in its next edition will go back to a number close to the previous figure?

And as a piece of advice in another matter: Have a good look at how Vandalism is defined on Wikipedia, and then speedily retract your reporting of such against Pathawi. This will not get anywhere, but if you proceed with it, it will damage your reputation on Wikipedia. And you should really do a better job of assuming good faith. In this situation you didn't. LandLing 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: Unfortunately, this happened at the same time that Cookiemonster1618 was involved in an ANI issue that resulted in their receiving a three-month topic ban that prevents their further engagement on this page. They are unable to respond to your question here right now. It's a little odd to have a provisional outcome that's the result of attrition rather than consensus. If this still feels important to them in three months, we can resume the conversation—hopefully a little more congenially!—then. Pathawi (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ooops, I just stumbled across that ANI page. Had I seen that before, I would have left out the final comment, as it clearly comes too late. LandLing 17:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethio-Semitic/Ethiopian Semitic/Eritrean Semitic

I'm writing this because this has happened a few times with this & related articles: I understand that for Eritrean people—particularly Eritrean Tigrinya-speakers—it can feel offensive that the family that Tigrinya is part of is referred to as 'Ethio-Semitic'. I think that this term is a problem, & I avoid it in my own professional writing. However, the term is widely used in linguistics, & it's what we'll see in the sources that inform this article. Everything on Wikipedia must come from reliable sources. One can't just change the term to 'Eritrean-Semitic' because one doesn't like 'Ethio-Semitic'. As a second consideration, the point that is regularly edited is a link to the Ethiopian Semitic languages article. Changing the text breaks the link. If you'd like to see the term changed, the Talk page for that article is the place to start—not individual occurrences in articles like this. The discussion will require reference to sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. If you don't know what that means, it would behoove you to familiarise yourself first. WP:RS is a good starting point. Pathawi (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I heartily second this comment. LandLing 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede uses 'Ethiopian Semitic', and that is also the title of the linked target article. For people unfamiliar with the established terminology in Semitic studies, this just looks like a blatant mistake (or at least like a pre-partition anachronism), as it naturally can be interpreted as referring to Semitic languages spoken in Ethiopia. What do you think about changing it here to 'Ethio-Semitic' (and maybe also moving the title of the subgroup article)? 'Ethio-Semitic' is not really much "better" (in the sense of less being perceived as offensive). But at least it looks like a specialized term that will not automatically be interpreted as a "mistake", even if it still may stir offense for Eritreans because of the obvious connection of the prefix to the name of Ethiopia.

From a cursory look into various handbooks about Semitic languages (e.g. Weininger 2011, Huehnergard & Pat-El 2019) and the languages of Africa (Güldemann 2018, Vossen & Dimmendaal 2020), I get the impression that 'Ethio-Semitic' actually better fulfils the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME than 'Ethiopian Semitic'. –Austronesier (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have the impression that you're right: 'Ethio-Semitic' better fits WP:COMMONNAME. Do you want to start a conversation over at Talk:Ethiopian Semitic languages? I suppose one could also move it boldly… I can't guess whether or not this would be controversial. Pathawi (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've done a bold move (surpisingly without technical obstacles). I case it gets reverted, we can initiate a move discussion. I've got lots of sources in my baggage already for that purpose. –Austronesier (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Great! Pathawi (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)