Category talk:Middle Assamese language

Should it be a separate category?
, What do you think of Middle Assamese spoken from 17th-mid 19th century? Should it be a separate category or should it be included under Assamese language category since they are nearly identical? This classification of "Middle Assamese" commonly used is based on type of literature and the kingdoms. The literature from Kamarupa kingdom, including Charyapada (where some of the composers were from Kamarupa and the languages of others are dialectal to each other) and MIA words in Sanskrit inscriptions are categorised as which lasted till 13th c. Then from 14th-16th century the mostly religious literature is categorised as. Then from 17th century when Assamese became a court language in Ahom kingdom and all sorts of literature, especially the chronicles were written plentifully till mid 19th century when Assam came under British rule is categorised as Middle Assamese. Then from the beginning of British rule in mid 19th century to ongoing period is categorised as. So based on that, we have a separate category for Middle Assamese. But this same period is called "Early Modern" for English (late 15th-late 17th) and Bengali. Early Assamese is from nearly the same period as Middle Bengali and Middle English. So based on the language, as it's nearly identical to Modern Assamese, do you think we should count it under "Assamese language" category, or is it better if it remains separate? Msasag (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Middle Bengali is from the 13th to the 18th century; the period from 16th-18th centuries is defined as Late Middle Bengali. Late Middle Bengali is of course closer to Modern Bengali, but it is still not treated differently. Now, of course, you might want to have a separate category for Late Middle Assamese (confer CAT:Late Middle English), but make sure such a category contains only those terms that are specific to the chronolect. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  09:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Can't create "Late Middle Assamese" as Middle Assamese contains only 17th-early 19th century, unless Early Assamese (14th-16th c) is called "Middle Assamese". I actually prefer calling it as Middle Assamese, but I haven't seen that anywhere. The categorisation is based on historical events and type of literature instead, so that's a bit confusing. Msasag (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then, the current arrangement seems okay. Let Middle Assamese remain as an independent language like Early Assamese and Modern Assamese. Interestingly, the timeline for different Indo-Aryan varies; indeed, as you say the timeline is based on the local history and literature of the language. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Middle Assamese has hardly any difference from Modern Assamese. Most of the literature we have in Middle Assamese is in the Eastern dialect and Modern Standard Assamese is also based on the Eastern dialect. Other modern dialects have much more differences than Middle Eastern Assamese and Modern Eastern Assamese have. That's why I was thinking whether it's right or not to keep them as separate languages (for example, Early Assamese can indeed be a separate language in linguistic terms, just like Middle English is from Modern English. So having a separate category as a separate language here definitely doesn't follow the linguistic definition of a separate language). Btw I was also thinking about another language. The Eastern Apabhramsa. Kamarupi Prakrit (Apabhramsa) / Old Assamese, Old Bengali, ancestral Odia of that period and perhaps ancestors of Bihari languages were all definitely dialectal to each other. So I'm thinking that we can use the same language for them (I suggest calling it "Avahattha" or "Eastern Apabhramsa".) but considering Kamarupi Prakrit (Apabhramsa), Old Bengali and others as different dialects of it. Msasag (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)