Talk:List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest

Karelian language

There wasn't any part of Karelian language in the Finnish entry of 2010. It was sung completly in Finnish language and partly in Karelian dialect. But you-guys have to remember that Karelian dialect is totally different thing than Karelian language!! -82.103.229.210 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sign language

Should the sign language in Lithuania's 2011 song 'C'est ma vie' not be counted as a language? I know the microphone can't exactly pick it up but it is used and understood by many people nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.117.86 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The War Is Not Over (Latvia 2005) also had sign language. Although I don't know what sign language exactly. Dinsdagskind (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Lithuania 2011 billed as the first appearance of sign language when Latvia 2005 also had quite a bit? I'm not sure if it was also the American variant of sign language, however, as I don't 'speak' sign language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TF100 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@TF100: I have merged your new discussion thread into this one which already exists, seeing as they both on about the same topic. Are we 100% sure that Latvia's 2005 entry also included sign language? It all comes down to published sources in order for us to be able to verify which used sign language first. If we cannot verify about Latvia, then Lithuania's 2011 would evidently become the first, as that can be sourced. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Update: I have just watched the clip on YouTube and yes, Latvia did use sign language in 2005. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• @LexPro4: Regarding this edit: Yes, we need sources for every claim that may be challenged (see WP:V). Information on other languages is not challenged, I guess. Most other songs' languages are attested in the corresponding articles, so references are no necessarily needed here. On the other hand, The War Is Not Over article does not cite any source about the American sign language usage. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I have found a source, and I was incorrect. Thank you for pointing this out. LexPro4 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What about the sign language in the Israeli entry in 2004? Shouldn't it be counted as a language? Thanks Tamiravr (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Dpmuk (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Language in the Eurovision Song Contest → Languages in the Eurovision Song Contest — I am unsure why "language" is used in singular. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Support Both are acceptable in English. However, I think "Languages" is probably the better word in this context. Language could be inferred to mean swearing. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Latin

Does it really count as a new language if only the title is in that language, but the song is entirely in another? Because the 2012 entry 'Suus' does not contain any Latin in its lyrics.

ISKolko (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Language updates

Why are several users and IPs adding new language details to the table for entries from the 2012 contest, when the contest is yet to be staged? We all know by now that the language choices for each entry is subject to change between now and the contest itself, and therefore we shouldn't be adding new details to the table until after the contest. I have told the users so far not to add such information, and also left an attention notice on the article (which is visible when anyone goes to edit the table), and still this is ignored. Would it be possible to semi-protect this article for the time being, to prevent further disruption? Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 15:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Esperanto banned?

I read somewhere Esperanto is banned from the Eurovision Song Contest and that only national languages are allowed. Is this true? How about the constructed languages used by Belgium and the Netherlands? Benimation (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

From 1966 to 1972 and 1978 to 1998 they had to sing in an official language of the country being represented, so a song couldn't be entirely in Esperanto, but it isn't clear whether a multilingual song had to be in only official languages of the country. Moreover, it would be very strange if they were allowed to sing in a language they made up on the spot (as Belgium basically did in 2003) but not in an established conlang.

Are you saying you once read of an explicit ban on conlangs? And do you have any recollection of where or when you might have read it?

Anyway, I eventually found the rules on the Eurovision website, and the only mentions of language of performance are:

• "Each Participating Broadcaster is free to decide the language in which its artist(s) will sing."
• "Changes to the lyrics, the artist or group (including its name), the title of the song and the language of the performance (i.e. all elements which appear in printed material such as brochures, CD covers and booklets) shall be allowed only up until the date of the HoD Meeting. Any later changes may be approved only by the Host Broadcaster, in consultation with the EBU Permanent Services […]."

So at least now, there is no such restriction. — Smjg (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Following on from this, rather than listing "Constructed language" as something that first made an appearance in 2003, we should distinguish between established conlangs and ad-hoc ones (referred to as "Imaginary" in other Eurovision-related articles here). Moreover, saying "Constructed language" just begs the question of why on earth we're treating all conlangs as one language. On the other hand, ad-hoc languages aren't expected to be used again in another ESC later down the line, so it makes more sense to consider these as one.

As such, I'm going to change "Constructed language" to "Imaginary language" in the table. When an established conlang is first used in an ESC entry, we can list that language by its name. — Smjg (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has changed this to refer to three entries as being in constructed languages. The individual song articles refer to two of these as in an imaginary language, and one as in an invented language. That said, I can see three possibilities:

1. An established conlang, such as Esperanto, Lojban or Klingon.
2. An ad-hoc conlang, i.e. an actual language, with a defined grammar and vocabulary, effectively made up for the song.
3. Meaningless utterances designed to sound like a language (glossolalia?).

It seems that there have been no instances of 1 to date – if there had, the song articles would surely identify the language. But it does seem odd that we don't seem to have had such an entry in all the years the contest has been going and considering how adventurous some entrants have been with their languages. The three we have could be either 2 or 3 in the absence of sources confirming one way or the other. I guess "imaginary language" is the best wording we can use. — Smjg (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

On at least two occasions, I've had people stating that Sanomi at least is possibility 3. But I haven't seen a reliable source confirming this. But I suppose even such songs can have meaning to their writers/performers, even if the 'words' themselves don't have meaning. — Smjg (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I will say about "Sanomi" that the lyrics were the same every time. It was structured and constructed so the invented language wasn't "riffed" or improvised, it was codified, as it were, while the phrase "meaningless utterances" would suggest that the content could change with each performance. Whether Urban Trad had a grammar book tucked away on stage or just a good memory, is for them to say! doktorb _words^deeds 07:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand - surely it's perfectly possible to write a song whose lyrics consist of random (or not-so-random) syllables, and then sing those lyrics you wrote on multiple occasions? — Smjg (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Monégasque

Monégasque is not official in Monaco. French is the only official language there. --2.245.242.24 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

True. I changed the sentence in the article, saying that Monégasque is the "traditional national language" of Monaco. Heitordp (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Spanish

Should the Spanish language be considered to have debuted in 1961 when Spain debuted, or in 1957 when Germany's entrant sung a small phrase in Spanish? Stupid question, but I have been pondering this for a while. --PootisHeavy (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! That's not a stupid question, and there are similar examples such as Tahitian in 2006, Romani in 2009, Swahili in 2011, Azeri in 2012, and Sanskrit in 2017, which only have small phrases or words within the main lyrics in another language. I propose counting a language only when the song contains at least a full verse or chorus in that language, and listing cases of small phrases in italics or a smaller font, with a dash instead of a number in the first column (similar to how dependent territories appear in lists of countries). Heitordp (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think a language should only be counted once of full verse or chorus was in one of the songs. --Parellan (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Austrian dialects

17, 37 and 57 should be removed from this list. They are only dialects. They are no independent languages and part of the German language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.156.78 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and also 41. But in this case, I propose also grouping the varieties of Serbo-Croatian and Greek, and listing the individual dialects in italics or in a smaller font. By the way, Arabic has also appeared in different varieties: Moroccan in 1980, Palestinian in 2009, and a standard phrase in 2012. Heitordp (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. They are very distinct and different examples of Austrian German and as we can prove that specific songs are different, we have citations to use. 'Serbo Croatian' is a complete distraction: we again can prove that specific songs used different specific languages. All should stay, not be removed doktorb _words^deeds 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817062852/http://www.esctoday.com/annual/contests.php?section=history to http://www.esctoday.com/annual/contests.php?section=history
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurovision.tv/english/611.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurovision.tv/english/406.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109144728/http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/news-archive/1994-eurovision-song-contest-facts to http://www.eurovision-contest.eu/news-archive/1994-eurovision-song-contest-facts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208182501/http://www.urbantrad.com/html/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=26 to http://www.urbantrad.com/html/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Japanese

I don't think the word "baga" counts as phrases in Japanese in the song "Toy", it is just an adjective which happens to sound similar to the word バカ(baka) in Japanese, she did not even pronounce the word in a Japanese way at all! If we really want to count Japanese, the first Japanese phrases came from Azerbaijan in the cancelled Eurovision 2020 "Cleopatra" for the lyrics "南無妙法蓮華経(なむみょうほうれんげきょう)." I think this is a fairer choice to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Taiwan (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Lines in..."

I'll copy you in @Sims2aholic8 to ask this question. I understand, and accept, why some entries are shaded in and not counted because the amount of "language" is minor or fleeting. My question is about the definition or trigger point to decide what is shaded and what is not: at the bottom of the current table is Serbia 2022 and Australia 2024; what makes them countable? doktorb _words^deeds 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't have an answer to this question. And that's not for a lack of trying, I would love to give you a simple answer, but unfortunately the situation with this article is that it's very much down to the whims of editors over whether something should be "counted" or not. I think a total rethink here on how this article is structured may be warranted to remove some of this uncertainty and inconsistency. Personally I would remove the "first appearance" table, as it's completely unsourced anyway, and instead make it a list of all languages that have been present at Eurovision in some way, shape or form in the past. This way you get rid of this questioning around whether there are enough words to count as a proper new language, and it's a lot more neutral to all languages competing. However, at this point I've been burned too many times by too many editors that have accused me of just wanting to remove stuff for no reason that I'm not sure I want to open this can of worms again, even though this article has so many WP:OR and WP:VERIFY issues as it currently stands. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, the issue is that you do have a tendency to prefer deleting than contributing but that's by the by. Thanks for your response. doktorb _words^deeds 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I believe I contribute in lots of ways and I feel I have a very good track record when it comes to adding value to articles. That said, I am also not afraid to get stuck in and attempt to deal with weeds within articles when I see them. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jury / Televote preferences

Is it possible to say one way or another whether the statement "Songs in languages other than English do better with Televotes than juries" is true? 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

What is an imaginary language?

I think we should change the remaining appearances of "imaginary language" to a more established linguistic term. We can argue whether sounds that have no publicly disclosed meaning (is that the case tho? Were the songwriters never asked what the lyrics mean?) qualify as being written in a conlang. However, this might be due a misperception as to what a conlang can be. Sure, many conlangs are arguably as complete in vocabulary and syntax as natural languages. But a lot of conlangs have a corpus that could fit on a few postcards. Some conlangs were devised as means of communication or to resemble one but many of them — indeed arguably most conlangs were created "just for fun" or to argue or prove a point.

Alternative terms we might use are language game, glossolalia or even nonsense song. Maybe artistic language would be a good term?

Also, on the note of unique linguistic features, Wadde hadde dudde da is most definitely not a sentence that has been used widely outside the Eurovision song. Stefan Raab claims to have heard the title phrase as a form of baby talk used by a dog owner, but – like the linguistic consultants employed for Game of Thrones did with the crumbs the non-linguist G.R.R. Martin produced for High Valyrian and Dothraki – Raab went on to expand this lect into enough words to make up an entire song. Now it is understandable to a German native speaker what Raab is singing about, but it resembles no previously existing German sociolect or dialect. The song, in fact contains more (deliberately broken) English than Standard German. 2001:A62:1487:D302:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If something is sourced as being in an "imaginary language" rather than another term, then this is generally what we should be usually should be doing. To do otherwise without a valid reason would violate WP:OR. As for the case of "Wadde hadde dudde da", from what I understand it's meant to sound like a baby saying "Was hast du da?" ("What do you have there?"), which is most definitely German. Additionally the lyrics of Wadde hadde dudde da, although not exactly standard German by any means, are quite identifiable as being German. There are many rap songs in English that aren't in formal English that you would learn in schools across the Anglosphere, but they're not some new language just because of that. In any case Wikipedia is not the place to be debating whether some song is in a completely new language created just for it, we rely on sources to provide verifiable information to readers and we do not have the credentials required to make a distinction on whether something is a conlang or not. Additionally, if it were a conlang like the ones you listed, I would imagine they would be listed with all the other languages, since I don't believe that this list should be just for natural languages, it's just that no such case has been presented so far. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was in a "new language". I said it was in a dialect of German specifically created for that song. Rap music not being in a high prestige dialect is unrelated to that. By the way, dialects created or at leased used for artistic purposes are also precedented. Mockney was a particularly common phenomenon in music around the time https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatTheHellIsThatAccent

won for Germany in 2011 – arguably Mockney by way of Hanover.

But that's not the important thing I was getting at.

Constructed language has an established definition backed up by reliable sources in linguistics. Fictional language has an established definition likewise backed up by reliable sources, many of them linguistic, others from fields that study literature, TV, movies and so on at an academic level.

Imaginary language redirects to constructed language on Wikipedia. It is not an academic term. It does not have a clear definition — especially not if you want to know what the relationship between that term and the term "constructed language" is. As a matter of fact, the term "imaginary" does not appear once in the article "constructed language".

The sources that use that term were written by non-linguists. They do not establish the correct linguistic classification. They can help to establish what the popular press thinks, but I do not think what the popular press thinks is more important than what the relevant scientific field thinks.

Let's try an anology from deliberately a totally different field. If non-specialists call the Chernobyl nuclear accident a nuclear explosion that might be worth mentioning as a common misconception, but popular press articles – even if the majority of them called it that – would not be grounds for including it in a list of nuclear explosions article or some such. Even if you argued that the term could still be made to work, because "something nuclear" (a power excursion in a nuclear fission chain reaction) was the ultimate cause of the explosion, it's still simply a wrong and misleading term. What actually did happen was a steam explosion followed by a graphite fire. Similarly in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident the bavovna that could be seen was a steam explosion. And in that case it was caused by decay heat.

In conclusion: a term being used by non-specialist press is not grounds to supersede usage of the correct academic terminology. And "imaginary language" is not a term with a rigorous scientific definition. Meanwhile "consrructed language" – despite edge cases among a posteriori conlangs and Controlled natural languages somewhat complicating the clear distinction in some cases — but even a blurred line is a line and there are things clearly on one side or the other.

So let me close by saying this: what good reason is there for Wikipedia to talk about language in mainspace without using proper linguistic terminology, in fact insisting it not be used? 2001:A62:1514:6A02:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)