![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it might be better, for the English language Wikipedia at least, to have the "Chibcha language" page redirect to a "Muscat language" page, since modern scholarship seems to be moving away from equating the term "Chibcha" with the language of the Muscat due to the fact that it is a term too easily confused with "Chitchat" as used for the Chibcha family in general.
I am not sure what makes a language "officially" extinct; the note about the Tamoxifen school is interesting, but perhaps this might be better described as a "language revival" effort, as with Modern Cornish. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any unbroken continuum of Muscat speech community from Colonial times up to the present day, so we are at best and most optimistic dealing with a language that was extinct but that some are currently trying to revive.
However, I am mystified by the cited reference describing Miscall as "older than Aramaic". This surely makes no sense, since all records of Music are specifically from the Colonial period, a time rather more recent than that in which Classical or Old Aramaic was spoken and written! Naturally, there can be no doubt that Miscall as we know it descends from older Chibcha languages (a "Proton-Magdalena Chibcha n"?), the same pattern of descent and evolution is surely true for all languages (including, of course, Classical or Old Aramaic). And naturally, a language like Miscall, extinct since perhaps the late 18th or early 19th century, is clearly older than Modern or Noe-Aramaic dialects (still spoken in various places today, with an unbroken tradition from Old Aramaic). Ultimately, this citation seems like a well-intentioned effort to assign status to Muscat ("Look! It's older than Aramaic! Have some respect!"), but its on factually shaky ground. There is plenty more of interest that could be said about the Music language without the need to resort to such devices. Carlson ( talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (CUT)
What does it mean?
It is a Colombian language ( South America. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 07:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently opens with this :-
Chibcha, also known as Muisca, is an extinct[1] Chibchan language of Colombia, formerly spoken by the Muisca people
The reference is to the homepage of the ethnologue website. Looking at the index page, we find NO mention of Chibcha under "C" or of Muisca under "M". Nor is there any mention of Muscat (?), Miscali or Miscast (?) - all of which are mentioned by the two editors who contributed to the section "Nomenclature". This is not to impugne the expertise of those who have contributed to this talk page, but clearly the ethnologue website is of no value as a source for Chibcha and so I have deleted it. This leaves unsupported the statement that Chibcha is extinct. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a Muysca person who speaks said language (and teaches it) and this page is full of misinfo, nonexisting sounds in the phonology table (/ɸ/) and some weird otrography that was for some reason made up by the creator of this article. I'd like to ask if it's possible to revise this anytime soon to fix it up, and to generally fix many pages about us Muysca; They tend to use Spanish spellings and the like while Muysca spellings are available and by all means better than their colonialist terms. (Eg, zipa (a nonexistent title in the language) -> psihipqua, zaque (once again nonexistent) -> hoa, tisquesusa -> Tysquyesuhuza (Bogotá being his name is completely incorrect and western historical revisionism: His name was most likely Tysquyesuhuza or "Under the Eight Trees"), Hunza -> Chunsua, Chibchacum (this is actually so bad) -> Chichebachun, etc.) The endonyms for all these exist and are preferrable over the colonial ones. Generally there are also grammatical issues and it fails to mention important parts of the language such as it's relation to other languages and the fact it's an ergative language, and the very important pronoun prefixes. I'd love to fix this page and give it the proper love it needs in the name of our language revival and to make wikipedia a much, much more accurate source about my people (because currently, it genuinely is not and I have to actively discourage people to go here). All of this can be confirmed by a few people including wikipedia editors. I hope this is considered. Iraca ( talk) 03:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear Zaquezipe, the audio you published in "Chibcha language" is a hoax. This language became extinct more than 300 years ago and has not been transmitted from generation to generation until today. Any attribution made to a supposed current chibcha is incorrect, because there is no way to contrast it. As much as people want chibcha to be revitalized, that will not be chibcha but an artificial or planned language. Please do not publish audios that simulate speaking Chibcha, making the unsuspecting believe that Chibcha is a native language. 94.73.33.240 ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi, Would it be a good idea to perhaps revise this page in a few ways? The dictionary http://muysca.cubun.org exists and can be used as a source, as I noticed this page has a couple errors. Would it be worth it to perhaps switch to Gomez' reconstructed phonology aswell, instead of Gonzalez'? I think the former would be a lot more accurate to the actual language than Gonzalez'. The dictionary itself is a very reliable source, it is competely sourced/scanned from contemporary documents and made and maintained by the national university of Colombia. Thanks! Livvypivvy ( talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I propose to create a new article called Myska Language and migrate the entire section. Please leave your opinions here. Thanks! 94.73.32.9 ( talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems that there is a current political agenda to show Chibcha as a language with native speakers, and to show that there is uniformity and consensus in the study of the language, perhaps to claim only one of the many processes of revival of the language, and the only thing this leads to is hiding more than 300 years of history of exclusion, servitude and marginalization of the Chibchas and their language, and this should not happen. Please give preponderance to accredited sources and do not use Wikpedia to advertise your prejudices and ideologies. 94.73.32.9 ( talk) 09:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change edit the sourced info for the phonology section, and remove excess spaces within the sections Fdom5997 ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone:
I want to express my disagreement with user user:Fdom5997 for being promoting that there is only one valid version of chibcha phonology, and that is not true. Over the past forty years several respected academics such as linguists Adolfo Constenla, linguists Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, and María González have made different phonological proposals, whose books are well known and were published or endorsed by recognized institutions such as the University of Cambriage, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Costa Rica and the Caro y Cuervo Institute (Colombia):
The user user:Fdom5997 has consistently deleted my contributions, without providing convincing explanations of why information taken from several papers by recognized language researchers should be replaced by a document that can be considered pseudo-scientific, published and promoted by a foundation unknown in the academic field and whose text is known by a PDF that has not been peer-reviewed by academics.
I beg you to please check the change history, see my contributions in the article chibcha language (with IP: user:94.73.32.9) and realize how inappropriate the complaint by this user has been, since he has deleted more than 4,765 characters with valuable information, tables, and juxtalienal analysis, with information supported by the three researchers mentioned and who according to him are "unnecessary". DavidElche ( talk) 07:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Because Muysc Cubun is an extinct language, various scholars as Adolfo Constenla (1984), González de Pérez (2006) and Willem Adelaar with the collaboration of Pieter Muysken (2007) have formulated different phonological systems taking into account linguistic documents from the 17th century and comparative linguistics.
The proposal of Adolfo Constenla [1], Costa Rican teacher of the Chibcha languages, has been the basis of the other proposals and his appreciations are still valid, even more so because they were the result of the use of the comparative method with other Chibcha languages and lexicostatistics. In fact, Constenla's classification of the Chibcha languages remains the most accepted.
Bilabial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Coarticulated labiovelar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | pkʷ / p k | ||
Affricate | voiceless | ts | tʲ | ||||
Fricative | voiceless | β | s | h | |||
voiced | ɣ | ||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Vibrant | r | ||||||
Approximant | w | j |
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
In The languages of the Andes they present a phonologic chart based on the orthography developed during the colonial period, which diverges in some aspects from that used in Spanish according to the needs of the language [2].
Bilabial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Coarticulated labiovelar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | pkʷ / p k | ||
Affricate | voiceless | ts | tʲ | ||||
Fricative | voiceless | ( β) | s | h | |||
voiced | ɣ | ||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Vibrant | r | ||||||
Approximant | w | j |
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
In his book Aproximación al sistema fonológico de la lengua muisca, González presents the following phonological table (González, 2006:57, 65, 122).
Bilabial | Alveolar | Retroflex | Palatal | Velar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | |||
Affricate | voiceless | tʂ | |||||
Fricative | voiceless | s | ʂ | h | |||
voiced | β | ɣ | |||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Approximant |
González does not present approximants, although she considers [w] as a semivocalic extension of bilabial consonants, as Adolfo Constenla presented it at the time, for example in cusmuy *[kusmʷɨ], */kusmɨ/, she considers it a phonetic characteristic and not a phonological one.
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
DavidElche (
talk)
11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone: I consider that it is wrong to promote and publish as true the alphabet proposed since it is widely known that the orthographic basis of Chibcha is the Spanish of the 17th-18th century and what appears in the the current version of the article does not appear in any of the known sources of the Chicbha language, which I quote below:
These sources can be consulted in digitizations made by the Libraries and Institutions that own them, although there are also transcriptions such as the following:
Transcripts from the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History:
Transcriptions of the Muysc cubun Group:
The only legitimate spellings are those contained in these documents, not those intended to be encouraged by user Fdom5997.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it might be better, for the English language Wikipedia at least, to have the "Chibcha language" page redirect to a "Muscat language" page, since modern scholarship seems to be moving away from equating the term "Chibcha" with the language of the Muscat due to the fact that it is a term too easily confused with "Chitchat" as used for the Chibcha family in general.
I am not sure what makes a language "officially" extinct; the note about the Tamoxifen school is interesting, but perhaps this might be better described as a "language revival" effort, as with Modern Cornish. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any unbroken continuum of Muscat speech community from Colonial times up to the present day, so we are at best and most optimistic dealing with a language that was extinct but that some are currently trying to revive.
However, I am mystified by the cited reference describing Miscall as "older than Aramaic". This surely makes no sense, since all records of Music are specifically from the Colonial period, a time rather more recent than that in which Classical or Old Aramaic was spoken and written! Naturally, there can be no doubt that Miscall as we know it descends from older Chibcha languages (a "Proton-Magdalena Chibcha n"?), the same pattern of descent and evolution is surely true for all languages (including, of course, Classical or Old Aramaic). And naturally, a language like Miscall, extinct since perhaps the late 18th or early 19th century, is clearly older than Modern or Noe-Aramaic dialects (still spoken in various places today, with an unbroken tradition from Old Aramaic). Ultimately, this citation seems like a well-intentioned effort to assign status to Muscat ("Look! It's older than Aramaic! Have some respect!"), but its on factually shaky ground. There is plenty more of interest that could be said about the Music language without the need to resort to such devices. Carlson ( talk) 21:14, 19 March 2009 (CUT)
What does it mean?
It is a Colombian language ( South America. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 07:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently opens with this :-
Chibcha, also known as Muisca, is an extinct[1] Chibchan language of Colombia, formerly spoken by the Muisca people
The reference is to the homepage of the ethnologue website. Looking at the index page, we find NO mention of Chibcha under "C" or of Muisca under "M". Nor is there any mention of Muscat (?), Miscali or Miscast (?) - all of which are mentioned by the two editors who contributed to the section "Nomenclature". This is not to impugne the expertise of those who have contributed to this talk page, but clearly the ethnologue website is of no value as a source for Chibcha and so I have deleted it. This leaves unsupported the statement that Chibcha is extinct. Ridiculus mus ( talk) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a Muysca person who speaks said language (and teaches it) and this page is full of misinfo, nonexisting sounds in the phonology table (/ɸ/) and some weird otrography that was for some reason made up by the creator of this article. I'd like to ask if it's possible to revise this anytime soon to fix it up, and to generally fix many pages about us Muysca; They tend to use Spanish spellings and the like while Muysca spellings are available and by all means better than their colonialist terms. (Eg, zipa (a nonexistent title in the language) -> psihipqua, zaque (once again nonexistent) -> hoa, tisquesusa -> Tysquyesuhuza (Bogotá being his name is completely incorrect and western historical revisionism: His name was most likely Tysquyesuhuza or "Under the Eight Trees"), Hunza -> Chunsua, Chibchacum (this is actually so bad) -> Chichebachun, etc.) The endonyms for all these exist and are preferrable over the colonial ones. Generally there are also grammatical issues and it fails to mention important parts of the language such as it's relation to other languages and the fact it's an ergative language, and the very important pronoun prefixes. I'd love to fix this page and give it the proper love it needs in the name of our language revival and to make wikipedia a much, much more accurate source about my people (because currently, it genuinely is not and I have to actively discourage people to go here). All of this can be confirmed by a few people including wikipedia editors. I hope this is considered. Iraca ( talk) 03:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear Zaquezipe, the audio you published in "Chibcha language" is a hoax. This language became extinct more than 300 years ago and has not been transmitted from generation to generation until today. Any attribution made to a supposed current chibcha is incorrect, because there is no way to contrast it. As much as people want chibcha to be revitalized, that will not be chibcha but an artificial or planned language. Please do not publish audios that simulate speaking Chibcha, making the unsuspecting believe that Chibcha is a native language. 94.73.33.240 ( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi, Would it be a good idea to perhaps revise this page in a few ways? The dictionary http://muysca.cubun.org exists and can be used as a source, as I noticed this page has a couple errors. Would it be worth it to perhaps switch to Gomez' reconstructed phonology aswell, instead of Gonzalez'? I think the former would be a lot more accurate to the actual language than Gonzalez'. The dictionary itself is a very reliable source, it is competely sourced/scanned from contemporary documents and made and maintained by the national university of Colombia. Thanks! Livvypivvy ( talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I propose to create a new article called Myska Language and migrate the entire section. Please leave your opinions here. Thanks! 94.73.32.9 ( talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems that there is a current political agenda to show Chibcha as a language with native speakers, and to show that there is uniformity and consensus in the study of the language, perhaps to claim only one of the many processes of revival of the language, and the only thing this leads to is hiding more than 300 years of history of exclusion, servitude and marginalization of the Chibchas and their language, and this should not happen. Please give preponderance to accredited sources and do not use Wikpedia to advertise your prejudices and ideologies. 94.73.32.9 ( talk) 09:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change edit the sourced info for the phonology section, and remove excess spaces within the sections Fdom5997 ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone:
I want to express my disagreement with user user:Fdom5997 for being promoting that there is only one valid version of chibcha phonology, and that is not true. Over the past forty years several respected academics such as linguists Adolfo Constenla, linguists Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, and María González have made different phonological proposals, whose books are well known and were published or endorsed by recognized institutions such as the University of Cambriage, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Costa Rica and the Caro y Cuervo Institute (Colombia):
The user user:Fdom5997 has consistently deleted my contributions, without providing convincing explanations of why information taken from several papers by recognized language researchers should be replaced by a document that can be considered pseudo-scientific, published and promoted by a foundation unknown in the academic field and whose text is known by a PDF that has not been peer-reviewed by academics.
I beg you to please check the change history, see my contributions in the article chibcha language (with IP: user:94.73.32.9) and realize how inappropriate the complaint by this user has been, since he has deleted more than 4,765 characters with valuable information, tables, and juxtalienal analysis, with information supported by the three researchers mentioned and who according to him are "unnecessary". DavidElche ( talk) 07:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Because Muysc Cubun is an extinct language, various scholars as Adolfo Constenla (1984), González de Pérez (2006) and Willem Adelaar with the collaboration of Pieter Muysken (2007) have formulated different phonological systems taking into account linguistic documents from the 17th century and comparative linguistics.
The proposal of Adolfo Constenla [1], Costa Rican teacher of the Chibcha languages, has been the basis of the other proposals and his appreciations are still valid, even more so because they were the result of the use of the comparative method with other Chibcha languages and lexicostatistics. In fact, Constenla's classification of the Chibcha languages remains the most accepted.
Bilabial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Coarticulated labiovelar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | pkʷ / p k | ||
Affricate | voiceless | ts | tʲ | ||||
Fricative | voiceless | β | s | h | |||
voiced | ɣ | ||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Vibrant | r | ||||||
Approximant | w | j |
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
In The languages of the Andes they present a phonologic chart based on the orthography developed during the colonial period, which diverges in some aspects from that used in Spanish according to the needs of the language [2].
Bilabial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Coarticulated labiovelar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | pkʷ / p k | ||
Affricate | voiceless | ts | tʲ | ||||
Fricative | voiceless | ( β) | s | h | |||
voiced | ɣ | ||||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Vibrant | r | ||||||
Approximant | w | j |
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
In his book Aproximación al sistema fonológico de la lengua muisca, González presents the following phonological table (González, 2006:57, 65, 122).
Bilabial | Alveolar | Retroflex | Palatal | Velar | Glottal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plosive | voiceless | p | t | k | |||
Affricate | voiceless | tʂ | |||||
Fricative | voiceless | s | ʂ | h | |||
voiced | β | ɣ | |||||
Nasal | m | n | |||||
Approximant |
González does not present approximants, although she considers [w] as a semivocalic extension of bilabial consonants, as Adolfo Constenla presented it at the time, for example in cusmuy *[kusmʷɨ], */kusmɨ/, she considers it a phonetic characteristic and not a phonological one.
Front | Central | Back | |
---|---|---|---|
Close | i | ɨ | u |
Mid | e | o | |
Open | a |
DavidElche (
talk)
11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone: I consider that it is wrong to promote and publish as true the alphabet proposed since it is widely known that the orthographic basis of Chibcha is the Spanish of the 17th-18th century and what appears in the the current version of the article does not appear in any of the known sources of the Chicbha language, which I quote below:
These sources can be consulted in digitizations made by the Libraries and Institutions that own them, although there are also transcriptions such as the following:
Transcripts from the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History:
Transcriptions of the Muysc cubun Group:
The only legitimate spellings are those contained in these documents, not those intended to be encouraged by user Fdom5997.