Talk:Ainu language

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CryptidZilla912.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 July 2020 and 16 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tangwuyou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meh259. Peer reviewers: Paigejaru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jigokuyari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Shibatani (1990) speaks of "Ainu languages".

In the source cited, the Languages of Japan, Shibatani makes no mention of anything other than dialects of Ainu.

Hattori and various contributors, whom Shibatani cites in talking about dialects, only speak of dialects in Ainugo Hōgen Jiten ("Ainu Dialect Dictionary"). Vovin, in Proto-Ainu also speaks only of dialects.

As a linguistics student interested in the language, nothing I have ever read nor anyone I have ever spoken with have even mentioned "Ainu languages".

This is a very serious error, and I would say, calls into question the need for this page. --Limetom 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Murasaki's work [with] the last fluent speaker of Sakhalin Ainu [...] stands out as a great addition to the corpus of data on Ainu languages. (Shibatani 1990:9) Notable that in one of the very few passages to deal with good data on something other than Hokkaidō, he uses the plural.

Remember too, Shibatani speaks primarily of "Japanese dialects", where we have an article on Japonic languages; Japanese scholars worked almost exclusively with just one of the Ainu languages, Hokkaidō; and back when the other varieties of Ainu were still vibrant, Japanese and Westerners alike considered both Japanese and Chinese to be single languages, and Japanese was considered a language isolate. (I've seen plenty of English encyclopedias which speak of Japanese that way.) Ainu is a lot like Japanese in this regard, but without the present-day diversity to force reevaluation. Nonetheless, historical records speak of a great deal of diversity in 19th century Ainu, and that some of these were mutually unintelligible, though we can't know if this reached the level of Japonic. kwami (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, quoting the ICRAP Ainu wax-cylinder preservation project: "The linguistic analysis of the information taken from the (...) cylinders will not only contribute to the progress of the study of the Sakhalin Ainu language as well as of the comparative study of the Sakhalin and the Hokkaidō Ainu languages but also [...]" (Bronisław (1998) The Collected Works of Bronisław Piłsudski: The aborigines of Sakhalin, p 2) That is, Sakhalin and Hokkaidō are considered separate languages, not dialects of a single language.

There are other mentions of "Ainu languages", but usually by people without direct knowledge, such as Cavalli-Sforza, or translated from Japanese, which doesn't have plurals. And true, Vovin does speak of dialects, not languages, and evidently they are not terribly divergent. But then, the same can be said of Japanese and Chinese. kwami (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am more tempted to believe that this is simply a typo on Shibatani's part. As you pointed out, Japanese does not have plurals, and confusing the singular and the plural is a very common mistake among Japanese second-language speakers of English. Nowhere else in the book does he mention multiple Ainu languages or an "Ainu language family", indeed, he talks about "...the Kurile [dialect] group, the Sakhalin [dialect] group, and the Hokkaidō [dialect] group." (Shibatani 1990: 7) --Limetom 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, could be a typo, or an editing error. However, a "Sakhalin dialect group" does not entail that Sakhalin and Hokkaido are therefore in turn dialects of a still larger group. Also, Shibatani's definition of a "language" is based on ethnicity rather than straight linguistics. kwami (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, what, then, is a straight linguistic definition of a "language" as opposed to a "dialect"? I don't think you'll get people to agree on an exact border there.

Shibatani, I think, intends that these three (Kuril, Sakhalin, and Hokkaido) are dialect groups of one, single, overarching language: Ainu. I still think that that one mention of "Ainu languages" is simply a typo.

Further, I don't think you'll find much support from anyone, aside from the handful of sources that you point out, all of which are dated, that support any kind of idea that there is a family of languages, rather than a grouping of dialects. --Limetom 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have said by mutual intelligibility.

Shibatani has Japanese as a single language, but we treat it as a Japonic language family. IMO Ainu is similar.

We can't just assume a typo when we have no real reason to believe that's the case. "Could be" doesn't mean "is".

There aren't many sources on this period, dated or otherwise, as all other Ainu lects are extinct. kwami (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some individuals interchange "dialects" with "languages" fairly often, even if they know it's semantically incorrect. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, my problem here is that really the only good source for this is from Piłsudski. I can find no sources in Japanese, no sources in Russian, and basically only Piłsudski in English who ever mention Ainu as a family of languages. It seems the scholarly consensus is that Ainu is a language isolate, with three dialect groups: Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and Kuril. This is the view on both the Russian and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as in Ethnologue and various other composite sources.

And in terms of mutual intelligibility, at least based off of Vovin's work (1993), all I have easy access to at the moment, most dialects seem to be fairly intelligible with one another, both in terms of lexicon and grammar. --Limetom 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Japanese sources is that many of them treat Japanese as a language isolate, or at most split off Luchuan. As for Ethnologue, things could well be different if those lects were extant--Ethnologue cares little about extinct languages. I agree though that it's a rather unclear situation. kwami (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous mentions of "Ainu languages" that come up on Google books, such as Materials for the Study of the Ainu Languages and Folklore, Rozwadowski ed. 1912, and European Studies on Ainu Languages and Culture, Josef Kreiner 1993. But the most explicit one I have access to is Patrick Heinrich (2008) "Casting Light on the Past: Lessons on the Origin and Formation of Japanese-Ryūkyūan", in Theories and methods in Japanese studies. He explicitly discusses "Ainu languages" and an "Ainu language family":

It needs to be determined how far southward the Ainu languages ever extended on the Japanese archipelago.

The myth that the Ainu languages are part of the Indo-European language family ... [failure to establish any external connections] As a result, Ainu continues to be regarded as an isolated language family.

these [indigenous] languages are Sakhalin Ainu, Kurile Ainu, Hokkaidō Ainu, ... Japanese-Ryūkyūan is generally regarded as an isolated language family, as is the Ainu language family.

kwami (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich is a Ryukyuanist and his work is on Japonic--specifically the Ryukyuan subgroup, not Ainu. While he did say "the Ainu language family," I see no real reason to take him as an authority in this area. Piłsudski's Materials for the Study of the Ainu Language and Folklore (emphasis mine) never mentions, at least anywhere I can find, "Ainu languages;" he consistently refers to Ainu in Sakhalin, the Kurils, and Hokkaido as a single group. Kreiner's work is called European Studies on Ainu Language and Culture.

I'm really just not seeing a scholarly consensus that there are multiple Ainu languages. --Limetom 09:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked one more source really quickly, Izutsu's I/Yay-Pakasnu; it too makes no mention of a family of Ainu languages, just dialects under the Ainu language. --Limetom 10:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The singular dominates in the lit, but it seems to me that's because most of the lit deals exclusively with Hokkaido Ainu. "Dialects" then generally refers to the dialects of Hokkaido.

Pilsudski, Material for the Study of the Ainu Languages (plural) is also cited in Buchli, in Yotte (French), and in Rocznik Biblioteki Polskiej Akademii Nauk w Krakowie, vol 46. Are all of these errors? Mauss cites him with the plural in 1954 (The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies), and still uses the plural when citing him in 2010 (Soziologie und Anthropologie 2). In The East vol 19, speak of the value of his recordings for "comparative studies of the Sakhalin and the Hokkaido Ainu languages". Pilsudski was one of the few to document something other than Hokkaido.

Sidney Cheung, Japanese Anthropology and Depictions of the Ainu, "it prohibited the use of the Ainu languages and Ainu folk customs"

Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney (1968) A northwest coast Sakhalin Ainu world view: "Perhaps, then, the place names in Hokkaido reflect a time when the Sakhalin Ainu and the Hokkaido Ainu languages were not yet differentiated." Another rare case of s.t. other than Hokkaido.

Northwest anthropological research notes 2004:38-39, p 179, "Their work is very valuable and appreciated today because linguists studying the Ainu languages have been working hard to preserve and revitalize a variety of Ainu dialects"

— kwami (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say citations of Piłsudski's 1912 Materials for the study of the Ainu language and folklore (or the recent University of Michigan reprint) as Materials for the study of the Ainu languages in the plural is indeed an error. The de Gruyter collected works of Piłsudski are also only in the singular. Piłsudski himself never says--anywhere I can find, at least--that there is more than one Ainu language.

Also, the citation from page 2 of the first volume of Piłsudski's collected works is not Piłsudski himself, but a quote from Majewicz (1997) on the project to restore wax cylinder recordings of Ainu made by Piłsudski. --Limetom 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize the above debate is 4 years old, but…

I think the argument comes down to this: kwami thinks Ainu is a family of languages, like Japanese; Limetom thinks Ainu is a single language, like Japanese. While kwami refers to Japonic, he's really arguing that Japanese itself, Japonic minus the Ryukyuans, is a family. For example: "The problem with Japanese sources is that many of them treat Japanese as a language isolate, or at most split off Luchuan."

Well, western sources often agree that Japanese is a single language, split off (within the Japonic family) from the Ryukyuan languages. Sure, some sources instead split off Hachijō as a separate language, or even subfamily, instead of treating it as a top-level or eastern dialect, and some people even split off Satsugū. But most treat it all as one language. And English Wikipedia agrees.

So, if Ainu is like Japanese (including Kagoshimaben and Hachijōjima, but not including the Ryukyuan languages), then it's a single language according to the way Wikipedia orders things.

Personally, I strongly disagree with Limetom that this is a "serious error", because I think the whole distinction between a language isolate (or single-language branch in a family) and a language family (or subfamily) is meaningless, and it gets even sillier when you start arguing about languages that clearly had multiple branches in the past but only have one surviving language. Whether, say, Ainu and Emishi are related, that's interesting; whether Ainu was 1 language or 3 a century ago (when it's clearly 1 now, and presumably a lot more than 3 more than a century ago) is hard to get excited about. But if you're going to argue about it, I think Limetom's argument wins. --50.0.128.185 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I was arguing that Ryukyuan is not a dialect of Japanese. Glottolog examined the lit and concluded Ainu was a small family, now reduced to a single language. And there's also the question of Koreanic, which is arguable a single language but Jeju is now treated as a distinct language by Unesco. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I propose to merge this article into Ainu language. Ainu languages is original research and not universal. Ainu language and Ainu languages articles have a lot of overlap.--ABCEdit (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I support this proposal and note previous discussion of the issue here. —  AjaxSmack  03:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger is completed.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. No language family is universally accepted, not even Indo-European. By this standard, we need to delete our articles on Japonic, Koreanic, Altaic and Balto-Slavic as well, and Chinese should be a single article. Even if you consider Ainu varieties to be dialects of a single language, just as many people consider Okinawan to be a dialect of Japanese, or Hakka to be a dialect of Chinese, WP has lots of articles on individual dialects. But Glottolog reviewed the evidence and concluded that Ainu was a small language family. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Merged again. "Ainu languages" has not gained consensus. Looking at past discussion, only you claim to be an independent article. That is not consensus of enwiki.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami. Article should not be merged. The claim that Ainu languages is WP:OR is wrong as there are sources like Glottolog. The article Ainu language (the hokkaido ainu) should be renamed as Hokkaido Ainu (like kuril ainu or sakhalin ainu are also named through geographic location).—AsadalEditor (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I proposed in the past to rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language (Talk:Ainu language#Requested move 16 February 2018). But plural persons opposed it. As a result of the discussion, we agreed on redirecting Ainu languages to Ainu language. To make Ainu languages an independent article is against the agreement.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I see, Ok than i will reinclude the moved content back. Maybe we should still think about the other option to rename it to Hokkaido Ainu and make it a subsection of the Ainu languages (like your original propose). --AsadalEditor (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@ABCEdit: Should we also merge the aricle Sakhalin Ainu and Kuril Ainu? Because it makes not much sense to merge Ainu languages with Ainu language/Hokkaido but let the Sakhalin/Kuril Ainu as own article. What do you think? --AsadalEditor (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The "merge proposal" was just what we have at the beginning of this thread. No discussion of sources, just one voice in support. You now have a couple voices in opposition. Since Glottolog was convinced to break up their Ainu language clade to a family, something that wasn't even mentioned in the merge proposal, there is certainly good reason to at least think before merging. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hokkaido Ainu language is redirected to Ainu language now, so I think it's reasonable for Kuril Ainu language and Sakhalin Ainu language to redirect to Ainu language.

But I think the two options below are ideal.

1

• Ainu language · · · Current article content. Treating Ainu as one language.
  • Hokkaido dialect (Ainu) ... A dialect of Ainu language. We should make this as an independent article.
  • Kuril dialect (Ainu)... A dialect of Ainu language. Independent article. Renamed from Kuril Ainu language.
  • Sakhalin dialect (Ainu)... A dialect of Ainu language. Independent article. Renamed from Sakhalin Ainu language.

2

• Ainu languages · · · Renamed from Ainu language. Treating Ainu as one family.
  • Hokkaido Ainu language ... A language of Ainu family. We should make this as an independent article.
  • Kuril Ainu language... A language of Ainu family. Independent article.
  • Sakhalin Ainu language... A language of Ainu family. Independent article.

--ABCEdit (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

But, ABCEdit, we already have your 2nd "ideal" option, and you keep reverting it. The articles should retain their histories. We don't need to recreate the existing articles. We could have a discussion on naming. However, since there were dozens of Ainu dialects, it would be a bit disingenuous to label them simply "dialects" as in your option 1, especially when that contradicts sources. We could move the primary language article to "Hokkaido Ainu" and the others to "Kuril Ainu" and "Sakhalin Ainu", since we don't have separate ethnography articles. (That's a very common naming strategy for languages on WP.) 'Ainu language' could then be either a rd to Hokkaido or to the family. Though I don't see any particular problem with leaving the names as they are. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would support a renaming of Ainu language to "Hokkaido Ainu". Currently we have Ainu languages and Ainu language. That is somewhat confusing.--AsadalEditor (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't oppose to rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language. But in my past proposal, plural persons opposed it (Talk:Ainu language#Requested move 16 February 2018). If you want to rename Ainu language⇒Hokkaido Ainu language（that is, adopt option 2）, please propose it on Talk:Ainu language again. I won't oppose it.--ABCEdit (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It could be just "Hokkaido Ainu" to placate those who might debate whether it's a language or a dialect. But the only substantial question is whether we have an article for the family, which no-one here seems to oppose. What we call the articles is secondary, and irrelevant to their content, and I don't particularly care what we chose. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

To placate those who find having both Ainu languages and Ainu language "confusing", we could rename Ainu languages to Ainuic languages to parallel Japonic languages, Koreanic languages, Mongolic languages, etc. It doesn't really roll of the tongue as easily, but it does appear to have some currency in the literature. This is just a suggestion though -- the current naming scheme seems perfectly acceptable to me as is (although Ainuic & Ainuic languages should probably be redirects at the very least).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. Though it does seem to be a little odd to call a family X-ic when all its members are simply called X. Like renaming Bantu "Bantuic". Though I suppose it's no different than Chinese vs Sinitic. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

discussing whether Ainu is a language isolate or a language family, the article name should be Ainu language, Ainu languages or Ainic languages, and Ainu language should be renamed Hokkaido Ainu language.--ABCEdit (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(I think ABCEdit meant Ainuic. That's the spelling found by William T. in the previous thread. Another option for the Hokkaido language is simply "Hokkaido Ainu". — kwami (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

• False dichotomy. Instead, merge to Ainu languages, don't call them "dialects", but don't fork out stub articles. The above thread lays out "two possibilities", which this RfC is meant to examine: 1) a number of tiny articles branching out from a language family article, or 2) one article treating it as a single language with dialects. Sources no longer seem to support the latter view (at least not entirely), yet this does not force us to create a bunch of miserable stubs. The obvious, third, compromise option is to just merge it all into a language-family article with sections, and redirects to those sections, unless/until the complexity and volume of content reaches the levels addressed at WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT as calling for spin-out articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there's enough for at least the family and the Hokkaido articles. It's rare that we have an article on a family without any articles for its languages, though Keres language comes to mind, which is presented as a language article but reads as a family article. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the coexistence of Ainu languages and Ainu language. That is very confusing. If you wish Ainu languages to exist, we have to rename Ainu language to "Hokkaido Ainu language".--ABCEdit (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, first, I will rename Ainu language to Hokkaido Ainu language (submit to Wikipedia: Requested moves) in one week. Let me know if you have other opinions.--ABCEdit (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that wording the two articles differently for clarity is probably a good idea, though I don't particularly care if it's Ainu and Hokkaido Ainu or Ainuic & Ainu. Or Ainu & Ainu, really - I don't know how confusing that could be, given how many pairs of 'X language' vs 'X languages' articles we have on WP, none of which seem to have proven to be confusing. The choice you propose is probably best, given the parallel with Sakhalin Ainu and Kuril Ainu. We should have a dab at the top, "Ainu language" redirects here. For the Ainu family, see "Ainu languages". We could even move the family to 'Ainuic languages' in addition to moving the Hokkaido article, for extra clarity. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Google gives a paltry 5,510 hits for "Hokkaido Ainu language". (And that's almost twenty times as many as for "Hokkaido Ainu dialects", which in turn is many more than for "Hokkaido Ainu dialect".) Not that titling an article with a little-used name is necessarily a bad thing. However they may be retitled, the article that's currently titled "Ainu languages" is now far more informative about Ainu as spoken in Hokkaidō than is the article currently titled "Hokkaido Ainu language". -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to consult the literature on this subject? "The Google" isn't always the best source of information. For example: Language Isolates Edited By Lyle Campbell, Publisher Routledge 3 October 2017 The opening paragraph on Ainu states:

"Ainu is a dormant language isolate previously spoken on the northernmost Japanese island of Hokkaido, as well as southern half of the Russian island of Sakhalin, and in the disputed Kuril Islands. There have been a large number of proposed relationships between Ainu and other language families. While most of the claims with regards to a genetic relationship are questionable, language contact between Ainu and Japanese on the one hand and Ainu and Nivkh on the other are well-substantiated, albeit understudied. There are several grammars of Ainu. The early Japanese-language grammars are short but are still valuable due to the fact that the authors were in consultation with native speakers. There are a number of collections of Ainu materials. Two of the most notable collections are Kindaichi and Kannari and Izutsu. Ainu is primarily divided into three groups: varieties found on Hokkaido, varieties found in the Kuril Islands, and varieties found on Sakhalin Island."

If you have an edu email, you can likely access the entire book in PDF form for free. Seeing as this is recent and Campbell is still the most published and respected authority on endangered and dormant languages, I'd say his opinion should be given weight. He's not a strict language conservative as some very young Linguists may suggest. He is an evidence-based Linguist and when he takes a cautious stance, it is not without reason, in my opinion. In all fairness, I should state that he taught at my university for a time and he IS the author of THE text on Historical Linguistics, which is updated regularly. LiPollis (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Except that Campbell doesn't know Ainu, whereas several of the other authors do. There is often going to be some disagreement as to whether varieties should best be considered dialects or languages, and often people won't address the issue at all. It wasn't so long ago that Japanese was a language isolate, after all, and Greek is still often presented as the only language of its branch of IE. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a collected volume. Campbell is the editor for the whole volume, not that chapter.

It really does feel like there's one group here insistent on pushing, for whatever reason, that there is an Ainu language family. None of the people on the Ainu-as-a-family side, that I've seen, reference the Japanese literature. In the Japanese language literature, I haven't ever seen 「アイヌ語族」'Ainu language family', only 「アイヌ語」 'Ainu language'. A lot of the English language literature is quite a bit more distant/secondary, and far smaller, than the Japanese literature on Ainu. So it sometimes feels to me like there is a pre-set conclusion that people are just trying to arrive at. Overall, it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not Ainu is a language family or a single language. But there are lots of little issues here and there. For, instance, the "Ainuic" term seems to be borderline WP:OR; it really doesn't show up even in the English language literature. And it also seems that we're splitting some near-stubs into stubs by breaking the articles up into the different dialects at this point. So ultimately I'm glad we're at least trying to discuss this, but just worry about it becoming intractable. --Limetom 03:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

In Japan, the view is dominant that Ainu is a single language and the subordinate varieties (Hokkaido, Kuril, Sakhalin) are dialects. We Japanese don't say "アイヌ語族" at all. However, for the subordinate varieties, we call "北海道アイヌ語"(Hokkaido Ainu language), "千島アイヌ語"(Kuril Ainu language) and "樺太アイヌ語"(Sakhalin Ainu language) more often than "北海道方言"(Hokkaido dialect(s)), "千島方言"(Kuril dialect(s)) and "樺太方言"(Sakhalin dialect(s)). I think this is because 1. "北海道アイヌ語" means "Ainu language in Hokkaido" rather than "Hokkaido-Ainu language", 2. we prevent confusion with Hokkaido dialect(s) of Japanese language, and 3. the meaning of "語" in Japanese includes not only a single language but also a plurality of languages and "アイヌ語" also means Ainu languages.--ABCEdit (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

In Russia, Ainu is also considered a single language with different dialects. Russian Wikipedia has a single article covering it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Айнский_язык . --46.242.12.2 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I may be a bit late, but first I don't want to leave the statement by Limetom uncommented: "the "Ainuic" term seems to be borderline WP:OR; it really doesn't show up even in the English language literature". Well, it is clearly not the majority term, but it is consistently used by Juha Janhunen and a small number of colleagues who have adapted his coinage.

Apart from this, I think the current solution ("Ainu language" and "Hokkaido Ainu language" redirected to this article) is more than awkward. What about restoring Hokkaido Ainu language as a full article, and turning "Ainu language" into a full dab page? Like this:

Ainu language may refer to

• Ainu languages, a language family
• Hokkaido Ainu language, a language spoken in Japan, the sole surviving member of the Ainu languages

And, before another arrogant "Has anyone bothered to consult the literature on this subject"-style question pops up: yes I have, too (like all other editors who have contributed to this discussion). –Austronesier (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: what do you think about the dab? –Austronesier (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)