![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I notice the Tiriyó language of South America has about 2,100 speakers and should be probably listed in your main number-of-speakers table. -- 103.59.198.110 ( talk) 04:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is there no Lakota, of the Sioux people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.121.222 ( talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Native American languages are quechua and guarani, too. America is not only the United States of America. The content of this page would been moved to Native American languajes of the United States of America, or similar.
This page is really just another "List of". It should be moved to "List of Native American languages". -- zandperl 13:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
what, no cherokee?
Please do not re-organise the continents into something they are not. There are two continents in the Western Hemisphere - North America and South America. North America stretches from Greenland in the north to Panama in the South, and includes the islands of the Caribbean.
South America stretches from Columbia, Venezuela and the Guianas in the north, to Tierra del Fuego (Argentina and Chile) in the south, and islands adjacent thereto.
Hi. There was a change to remove the Algic family from the Central American list.
I have defined North America as Canada & the US with the border between Mexico and the US acting as the dividing line. So, I am considering Mexico to be a part of Central America.
This is somewhat arbitrary, yes. The reason I did this was simply to give more languages to the Central America list & reduce the number in N. Amer. This is different from some language books. Many books dip down into Mexico for some languages but exclude others when listing languages for North America. There is not 100% consistency among all the books I have consulted. I think that different people in linguistics and other fields make the division in slightly different ways.
With the partitions defined as above, the Algic family must be considered to be spoken in North and Central America. There is only one Algic: the Kickapoo dialect (or language) of the Fox-Sauk-Kickapoo language (of Algonquian affinity). Kickapoo is spoken in Coahuila, Mexico as well as in Texas, Oklahoma, & Kansas. There are about 1,500 speakers total.
Do you think that we should redefine the boundaries in a different way?
Thanks. — ishwar (SPEAK) 16:40, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Right, so loosely there are
And there are of course writers who conflate these. What to do? I dont know. Perhaps it would be nice if wikipedia as a whole was consistent in its terminology? So, this would suggest an inclusion of the entire country of Mexico into North America. This is not what language books typically do, which is to follow cultural boundaries more (as far as I can tell). Following the cultural boundaries makes the most sense to me. However, I doubt many casual readers know much about the cultural areas. But maybe language lovers would know... As I said above, it doesnt really bother me which way we go with this. We just should approximately where the languages are. Your suggestion for a descriptive heading is a good idea. Peace. — ishwar (SPEAK) 23:07, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
hi. i am working on a color map of north america based on Mithun (1999). i will post a preliminary draft of it soon. comments of course will be welcome, esp. since i barely know how to use gimp. — ishwar (SPEAK) 10:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
hi, i would be interested to know if anyone has an opinion concerning this: Talk:Languages in the United States#native langs: first or last?. thank you. peace. — ishwar (SPEAK) 01:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
A new stub category has been created specifically for Native American languages: {{ na-lang-stub}}. Use {{na-lang-stub}} rather than {{stub}} or {{lang-stub}} to label stubs on Native American languages.
Stub categorizing is a convenient way to keep track of Native American related stubs and additionally helps in keeping the category of language stubs usable. Everyone is invited to check Category:Language stubs to sort out any Native American language stubs... Thanks!
For discussion see: WP:WSS/Stub types#Language and literature and WP:WSS/Criteria#Split of lang-stub. — ishwar (SPEAK) 00:03, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
i think there should be some discussion of the "lumpers vs. splitters" debate. typical descriptions of native american languages, as on this page, give the impression that "most linguists" or "most specialists" discount evidence of most or all larger-level groupings. in a strict sense this may be true, but it leaves out a very important aspect, which is that amerind linguistics in particular is completely dominated by "splitters"; hence, similar amounts of evidence that are accepted in favor of [e.g.] the african stocks are not accepted here as a result. thus, a reader comparing the two pages may get the sense that the evidence for larger amerind groups is much weaker than for larger african groupings, which is not obviously the case. both campbell and mithun are adamantly opposed to mass comparison as a legitimate method, and campbell, at least, strongly disagrees with the current consensus w.r.t. african groupings [personal communication -- he feels that at the very least, neither nilo-saharan nor khoi-san have any legitimacy]. in campbell's intro book on historical linguistics, his chapter on distant genetic relationships consists of a systematic attack on all possible means of establishing such relationships, with long sections devoted to various ways to disprove such relationships and where mass comparison is described as "controversial and rejected by most mainstream historical linguists".
Benwing 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. I would suggest at least that the section on more distant proposals be revised to [a] list the proposals according to who made them, and hierarchically when they have been made that way (e.g. by Greenberg); [b] indicate the approximate level of skepticism/acceptance of them. Simply listing them all in a bunch, where well-accepted groupings and mixed with highly questionable ones, seems a sure-fire way of dismissing the entire notion of larger groupings. Campbell does that, for example, in the back of his intro historical linguistics book. I suspect that he purposely listed Dravidian-Uralic, Dravidian-Japanese, Elamite-Dravidian, Japanese-Austronesian, Japanese-Altaic, Ural-Altaic, Eskimo-Uralic, Indo-European-Uralic, Indo-European-Eskimo, Indo-European-Semitic, Indo-European-Afroasiatic, etc. together, and in the same group of "unconfirmed proposals" as the well-accepted Afroasiatic, Altaic, Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan and the highly-cracked Basque-Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dene, Proto-World, etc. in order to discredit the entire notion of historical groupings by making it appear that there have essentially just been random attempts to group every family with every other. I consider it irresponsible scholarship that he makes no attempt to separate commonly accepted groupings such as Afroasiatic and the "so-called Altaic" (his words! yes, i'm aware that there is some dispute over Altaic) from discredited groupings such as Ural-Altaic or simply bizarre groupings such as "Athabaskan (or Na-Dene) plus Sino-Tibetan" (???).
However, I can see that both of you know more about this field than I do so it might make more sense for you to add this info. Benwing 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The other area where there are marked differences between lumpers and splitters is with languages and dialects, rather than language families. What is a language, and what is a dialect? are there one, or two, or five, or nine Keres languages? Tom Radulovich 05:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Should also link to Je-Tupi-Carib. kwami 10:10, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
some readers find the term Native American confusing, so i suggest moving to Indigenous languages of the Americas. this parallels Indigenous peoples of the Americas. peace – ishwar (speak) 18:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
So, I'm just dumb as a stick when it comes to languages, but is there a reason that Plains Indian Sign Language doesn't show up here? It's a staple of American culture's conception of Plains Indians, but I'm not sure of its historical veracity. Did it exist? Was it used? If not, where did the idea develop from? Is it not an indigenous language, but developed as a pidgin after European contact? If it did exist and was attested, is there a good reason it shouldn't be listed on this page? -- ESP 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Could anybody give an information if Nahuatl and Quechua are the only indigene American languages spoken by more than 1 million people? Thank you.-- 141.2.140.13 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
(Yukatek maya has 900,000, Zapotec 750,000, Mixtec 500,000) Maunus 11:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a list of place names (cities, towns, states, etc.) with Native American origins. E.g. here http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmnames1.html I guess it should belong in its own article, which should be linked from this article.
What's up with the languages by continent bar near the end? Last I checked, Africa was a continent. I'd change it but in the script it just says {{Languages by Continent}} so I have no clue how to... -samaraphile
I often hear the ending '-ello' in North American native languages, mostly '-yello' and often 'nee yello'. I heard it a lot in Into the West (miniseries), where most Indians were Lakota, but I believe I've heard it before. What does this mean and which languages is it used in? (btw, I asked at the languaage ref desk, but didn't get an answer there, so I thought I'd try here.) DirkvdM 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Researching something else, I just came across a passage in James Teit's work on the Thompson Indians Nlaka'pamux, available on line and linked here to the pertinent page, saying in a discussion peoples known to the Nlaka'pamux:
Now who might that be? Could it be the Cayuse? The name is clearly, to me anyway, Nlaka'pamux and not in their language. Skookum1 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was possible to acquire any sound samples on the net in which a Northern American Indian language is being spoken, for the purpose of study and presentation. If anyone knows such a link, please let me know. Thank you. -- 84.2.150.130
I am wondering why Greenland is listed? Does Greenland not fall under Danish jurisdiction, so therefore it should be removed? Mr. C.C. ( talk) 04:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a split in this article, to Indigenous languages of the North America and Mexico, and Indigenous languages of the central and South America, since it's pretty certain the first peoples in the continents did not cross the Caribbean. Whether it was Muskogeans or Arawakans or even Caribans who inhabited the Caribbean, this probably happened later than the initial migration to the Americas, or can you see Cuba from Florida? Calusa might belong to any of those, if I've understood correctly? 80.186.30.5 ( talk) 08:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, please is there any forum or newsgroup for discussion about native indian languages? Please include in links. this is not yours wikipedia or mine wikipedia. Share information!! -- 79.132.187.250 ( talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Native Cherokee Lexicon Translation Project. -- Wavelength ( talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't find it in any of the lists, only mentioned in the running text - why? CapnZapp ( talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I just revised the background section, reorganized the article structure, added several tables (proposals, language areas, more), and made the article look nicer. Enjoy! — Stevey7788 ( talk) 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"""""North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. California alone has 18 genetic units consisting of 74 languages (compared to the mere 3 genetic units in all of Europe: Basque, Indo-European, Uralic).[3]"""""
It has at least four, turkish is not uralic, at least if you talk about uralic altaic family it would include also Turkish language.
If you consider Europe as its official extension, there are more genetic units, for example caucasian, and mongolian (Kalmyk people in caucasus, and I'm sure i'm forgetting some, like Semitic of Malta, who are arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.238.114 ( talk) 20:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I was just going to add that in the Southeastern corner of Europe, the province of Thrace has been inhabited by a Turkic speaking population since at least the 16th century I think. I was just thinking that whether it's called Altaic, or Uralic, it should be noted as being the fourth language group in Europe, shouldn't it? Prestlll ( talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've redirected Salumã language, but is that what was intended? Same name, wrong language, maybe? And is Patagon language(s) just Chon? I'm hoping to get rid of all the red links. (Ethn. also has a Salumá, but that's Cariban.) — kwami ( talk) 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Mexico is in North America - why the barrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Some of these are cultures or peoples with unattested languages:
Mato Grosso Arara language (iso3), Colima,
Comechingón, Huancavilca =
Manteño civilization, Humahuaca = Omaguaca, Karahawyana, Korubo (now classified), Sanavirón,
Tremembé language (iso3)
Quingnam distinct, or Moche?
Some details, but not found in SIL search: Umbra: La palabra umbrá en su lengua significa "de la cordillera". Esta lengua aún es hablada por varios centenares de personas y aún no ha sido clasificada. Supposedly still spoken in Colombia.
(spurious?) or just unattested: [1]
Lenguas preincaicas de la cuenca del Marañón: Copallen, Rabona, Tabancale, Sacata, Bagua, Patagon [currently a dab], Malacato, Bolona, Xiroa, Chirino, Chacha
— kwami ( talk) 07:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Others we don't cover:
The following blue links are simply redirects: Teushen language (to Chon), Nonuya language, Andoquero and Coeruna language (to Bora-Witoto), Tairona language and Old Catío-Nutabe language (to Chibchan), Mocana language (to Malibu), Patagon language (a dab). — kwami ( talk) 06:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Odd that we list all these barely attested, or even unattested, languages of S.Am. when we don't have Yamasee or Guale for N.Am. — kwami ( talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
is there any way to include and actual (e.g. current) map? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's the list of names in Ruhlen (1987), to make sure we get redirects for them all. This is clipped from a digital copy, but that was done by hand, so non-obvious red links should be checked against the hard copy before making rd's. —
kwami (
talk)
10:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Language names in Ruhlen (1987) for full list of names in G's classification
Red links and uncertain IDs for Amerindian languages listed in Ruhlen (1987)
|
---|
Most of these languages are listed (along with many other names) in Loukotka (1968) with "[nothing]" known about them, but a few (¶) are not found in Loukotka. (Most of these are apparent typos in Ruhlen, and I've removed the ⟨¶⟩ as I've ID'd them.)
Popayan§ (= Puben§), Burua* (Buruá), Taware§ (= Tawari, Tauaré), Caranga§¶ (dbl check: Lokoutka has as Aymara), Urupa* (= Ituarupa)¹, Herisobocono* (Herisebocon), Ocorono§, San Ignacio§, Cushichineri* (= Kushichineri, Cuchichineri, Cushitineri), Cutinana* (≈ Aguano?), Casharari* (≠ Kaxarari?), Catiana§, Wainamari§ (Lokoutka has as Arawa), Pucapacuri* (Pucapucari), Puncuri§, Sirimeri (=Mashco, Sirineiri), Sae§, Mawacua§ (Mawakwa), Guanebucan§, Cuati§ (= Coati-tapuya = Kapité-Mínanei), Izaneni§ (Adzáneni), Itayaine§¶, Fitita*, Kumayena* (Ocomayana), Arinagoto*, Caripuna (mis-ID'd per E17), Sinabo*, Zurina* (unknown language), Capuibo* (unknown), Niarawa*¶ [Niaragua, Niamagua], Pichobo* (unknown), Araua* (unknown), Mayubo*¶, Rëmoxbo [can't confirm name anywhere. maybe Remo+shibo?]*¶, Yamaluba*, Guariza§ (missions of Reyes & San Antonio de Isiama), Chumana*, Capachene* (= Capechene, unknown language), Mabenaro*, Aravira*, Dorin*¶ (Mason 1950 lists as 4th branch of Kaingang), [4] Chiqui* (Xiqui), Amho*, Acroa, Aricobe* (Akaroa – Lakoutka listed separately from Acroa/Coroa), The Aricobe listed for Zisa is Tupian Guegue* (Goguez),
|
¹ I redirected Urupa to Oro Win, but need to confirm; have not found a source that lists both names
Why is Guaraní not on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sapir's remarks are little short of dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
About half the Indian langauages in North America have been wiped out. Navaho, however, has actually benefitted from the introduction of modern medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 ( talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indigenous languages of the Americas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this correct? Surely across the whole of the Americas the majority of first contacts were later than the end of the 15th century? And this wording makes it sound as if lots of contacts were happening between the very limited early Nordic contact and Columbus' voyages, whereas AFAIK there was nothing happening at all. 81.132.196.237 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, "Thousands of languages..." needs a footnote. I find "there were perhaps a thousand languages spoken in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans - about 250 in the present territory of the United States alone." at http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFLohr ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
ONE citation for several paragraphs (not counting another ref that is not directly related to the topic)? This needs to be firmed up with Reliable Sources. Also, the claim of "thousands of languages" is highly suspect (speaking as a historian.) A solid reference(s) is required here. Note that lingquistically, there is a difference between 'language' and 'dialect.' Please help to validate this section properly. 104.169.26.177 ( talk) 06:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indigenous languages of the Americas. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have asked User:2001:4C4D:1E43:700:F9FD:F445:6535:A4B3 to stop making changes to the Unattested languages section without explanation, and to discuss such changes here on the talk page before doing so again. - Donald Albury 21:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I consulted the table of native speakers verifying some information and found it very incomplete and kind of vague in some references. I decided to add all languages with more than 100 thousand speakers in Mexico's Indigenous Language report because I think they are needed to be known. As a matter of fact there was a moment when I considered add all the 2015 report but I did not, I only added two very small speakers number languages which I feel very depressed on them disappearing, maybe a PhD candidate can save some knowledge about them. I deleted a circular reference on nahuatl and on blackfoot and add the number of speakers and a reference to Greenland language. I also translated this table and copied to the Spanish version of wikipedia [1]. As per my understanding this is common knowledge and I hope no one get mad on this. Health and peace, El Alfa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.202.135 ( talk) 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Current sentence: "According to UNESCO, most of the indigenous American languages are critically endangered, and many are currently dormant without first language speakers, or extinct."
Proposed sentence: "According to UNESCO, most of the indigenous American languages are critically endangered, many are currently dormant, and some are likely to be irrevocably lost."
Reason for proposal:
I had revised this sentence from 'and many are extinct' to 'and many are currently dormant without first language speakers'. Very quickly, another editor re-inserted 'or extinct', with a rationale that there are languages that are almost certainly irrecoverable, and there's 'no need to euphemize'.
But replacing 'extinct' with 'dormant' isn't euphemizing, it's accurate for most Indigenous American languages that no longer have active speakership, but that do have at least some documentation (of the language and/or of closely related languages, cf. the work of Jessie Little Doe Baird on Wampanoag, and of Daryl Baldwin on Myaamia), and surviving humans. Using 'extinct' has been identified by many dormant language communities as perpetuating harmful misconceptions.
Linguists started using the term 'extinct' to refer to language endangerment largely following work by Michael Krauss and others in the early 1990s, and for a time it was the accepted terminology within the scholarly community to use for any language that no longer had L1 speakers. That's no longer the case, and its acceptance in the past was part of a rhetorical strategy adopted by Krauss et al to get linguists to wake up and do something about language loss. Krauss et al's terminology continues to be used in the UNESCO document cited (which is why I added a more recent source for the use of 'dormant' instead), and in lots of places, but that's legacy - and is no longer accepted by most scholars in the field.
There is consensus, though that some languages are probably not recoverable, due to the lack of both sufficient documentation and a surviving community. I'm hopeful that others will find the proposed edit above acceptable, and if so, I'll roll it into the article.
-- AmyFou ( talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Lehmann (1920) recognized that Mè'phàà was closely related to the geographically distant Subtiaba (also known as Nagranda or Maribio), a dormant and sparsely documented language that was spoken around León, Nicaragua (Campbell, 1975).
Nevertheless, Siraya still exists as a relatively well documented dormant language.
Some who attended the event expressed their doubts at the possibility of reviving a dormant language.
Siraya, a language that is now extinct
in 1895, Siraya was almost extinct
there were at least 25 Formosan languages. Today, ten of these have become extinct
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I notice the Tiriyó language of South America has about 2,100 speakers and should be probably listed in your main number-of-speakers table. -- 103.59.198.110 ( talk) 04:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is there no Lakota, of the Sioux people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.121.222 ( talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Native American languages are quechua and guarani, too. America is not only the United States of America. The content of this page would been moved to Native American languajes of the United States of America, or similar.
This page is really just another "List of". It should be moved to "List of Native American languages". -- zandperl 13:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
what, no cherokee?
Please do not re-organise the continents into something they are not. There are two continents in the Western Hemisphere - North America and South America. North America stretches from Greenland in the north to Panama in the South, and includes the islands of the Caribbean.
South America stretches from Columbia, Venezuela and the Guianas in the north, to Tierra del Fuego (Argentina and Chile) in the south, and islands adjacent thereto.
Hi. There was a change to remove the Algic family from the Central American list.
I have defined North America as Canada & the US with the border between Mexico and the US acting as the dividing line. So, I am considering Mexico to be a part of Central America.
This is somewhat arbitrary, yes. The reason I did this was simply to give more languages to the Central America list & reduce the number in N. Amer. This is different from some language books. Many books dip down into Mexico for some languages but exclude others when listing languages for North America. There is not 100% consistency among all the books I have consulted. I think that different people in linguistics and other fields make the division in slightly different ways.
With the partitions defined as above, the Algic family must be considered to be spoken in North and Central America. There is only one Algic: the Kickapoo dialect (or language) of the Fox-Sauk-Kickapoo language (of Algonquian affinity). Kickapoo is spoken in Coahuila, Mexico as well as in Texas, Oklahoma, & Kansas. There are about 1,500 speakers total.
Do you think that we should redefine the boundaries in a different way?
Thanks. — ishwar (SPEAK) 16:40, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Right, so loosely there are
And there are of course writers who conflate these. What to do? I dont know. Perhaps it would be nice if wikipedia as a whole was consistent in its terminology? So, this would suggest an inclusion of the entire country of Mexico into North America. This is not what language books typically do, which is to follow cultural boundaries more (as far as I can tell). Following the cultural boundaries makes the most sense to me. However, I doubt many casual readers know much about the cultural areas. But maybe language lovers would know... As I said above, it doesnt really bother me which way we go with this. We just should approximately where the languages are. Your suggestion for a descriptive heading is a good idea. Peace. — ishwar (SPEAK) 23:07, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
hi. i am working on a color map of north america based on Mithun (1999). i will post a preliminary draft of it soon. comments of course will be welcome, esp. since i barely know how to use gimp. — ishwar (SPEAK) 10:05, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
hi, i would be interested to know if anyone has an opinion concerning this: Talk:Languages in the United States#native langs: first or last?. thank you. peace. — ishwar (SPEAK) 01:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
A new stub category has been created specifically for Native American languages: {{ na-lang-stub}}. Use {{na-lang-stub}} rather than {{stub}} or {{lang-stub}} to label stubs on Native American languages.
Stub categorizing is a convenient way to keep track of Native American related stubs and additionally helps in keeping the category of language stubs usable. Everyone is invited to check Category:Language stubs to sort out any Native American language stubs... Thanks!
For discussion see: WP:WSS/Stub types#Language and literature and WP:WSS/Criteria#Split of lang-stub. — ishwar (SPEAK) 00:03, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
i think there should be some discussion of the "lumpers vs. splitters" debate. typical descriptions of native american languages, as on this page, give the impression that "most linguists" or "most specialists" discount evidence of most or all larger-level groupings. in a strict sense this may be true, but it leaves out a very important aspect, which is that amerind linguistics in particular is completely dominated by "splitters"; hence, similar amounts of evidence that are accepted in favor of [e.g.] the african stocks are not accepted here as a result. thus, a reader comparing the two pages may get the sense that the evidence for larger amerind groups is much weaker than for larger african groupings, which is not obviously the case. both campbell and mithun are adamantly opposed to mass comparison as a legitimate method, and campbell, at least, strongly disagrees with the current consensus w.r.t. african groupings [personal communication -- he feels that at the very least, neither nilo-saharan nor khoi-san have any legitimacy]. in campbell's intro book on historical linguistics, his chapter on distant genetic relationships consists of a systematic attack on all possible means of establishing such relationships, with long sections devoted to various ways to disprove such relationships and where mass comparison is described as "controversial and rejected by most mainstream historical linguists".
Benwing 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. I would suggest at least that the section on more distant proposals be revised to [a] list the proposals according to who made them, and hierarchically when they have been made that way (e.g. by Greenberg); [b] indicate the approximate level of skepticism/acceptance of them. Simply listing them all in a bunch, where well-accepted groupings and mixed with highly questionable ones, seems a sure-fire way of dismissing the entire notion of larger groupings. Campbell does that, for example, in the back of his intro historical linguistics book. I suspect that he purposely listed Dravidian-Uralic, Dravidian-Japanese, Elamite-Dravidian, Japanese-Austronesian, Japanese-Altaic, Ural-Altaic, Eskimo-Uralic, Indo-European-Uralic, Indo-European-Eskimo, Indo-European-Semitic, Indo-European-Afroasiatic, etc. together, and in the same group of "unconfirmed proposals" as the well-accepted Afroasiatic, Altaic, Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan and the highly-cracked Basque-Sino-Tibetan-Na-Dene, Proto-World, etc. in order to discredit the entire notion of historical groupings by making it appear that there have essentially just been random attempts to group every family with every other. I consider it irresponsible scholarship that he makes no attempt to separate commonly accepted groupings such as Afroasiatic and the "so-called Altaic" (his words! yes, i'm aware that there is some dispute over Altaic) from discredited groupings such as Ural-Altaic or simply bizarre groupings such as "Athabaskan (or Na-Dene) plus Sino-Tibetan" (???).
However, I can see that both of you know more about this field than I do so it might make more sense for you to add this info. Benwing 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The other area where there are marked differences between lumpers and splitters is with languages and dialects, rather than language families. What is a language, and what is a dialect? are there one, or two, or five, or nine Keres languages? Tom Radulovich 05:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Should also link to Je-Tupi-Carib. kwami 10:10, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
some readers find the term Native American confusing, so i suggest moving to Indigenous languages of the Americas. this parallels Indigenous peoples of the Americas. peace – ishwar (speak) 18:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
So, I'm just dumb as a stick when it comes to languages, but is there a reason that Plains Indian Sign Language doesn't show up here? It's a staple of American culture's conception of Plains Indians, but I'm not sure of its historical veracity. Did it exist? Was it used? If not, where did the idea develop from? Is it not an indigenous language, but developed as a pidgin after European contact? If it did exist and was attested, is there a good reason it shouldn't be listed on this page? -- ESP 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Could anybody give an information if Nahuatl and Quechua are the only indigene American languages spoken by more than 1 million people? Thank you.-- 141.2.140.13 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
(Yukatek maya has 900,000, Zapotec 750,000, Mixtec 500,000) Maunus 11:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a list of place names (cities, towns, states, etc.) with Native American origins. E.g. here http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmnames1.html I guess it should belong in its own article, which should be linked from this article.
What's up with the languages by continent bar near the end? Last I checked, Africa was a continent. I'd change it but in the script it just says {{Languages by Continent}} so I have no clue how to... -samaraphile
I often hear the ending '-ello' in North American native languages, mostly '-yello' and often 'nee yello'. I heard it a lot in Into the West (miniseries), where most Indians were Lakota, but I believe I've heard it before. What does this mean and which languages is it used in? (btw, I asked at the languaage ref desk, but didn't get an answer there, so I thought I'd try here.) DirkvdM 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Researching something else, I just came across a passage in James Teit's work on the Thompson Indians Nlaka'pamux, available on line and linked here to the pertinent page, saying in a discussion peoples known to the Nlaka'pamux:
Now who might that be? Could it be the Cayuse? The name is clearly, to me anyway, Nlaka'pamux and not in their language. Skookum1 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was possible to acquire any sound samples on the net in which a Northern American Indian language is being spoken, for the purpose of study and presentation. If anyone knows such a link, please let me know. Thank you. -- 84.2.150.130
I am wondering why Greenland is listed? Does Greenland not fall under Danish jurisdiction, so therefore it should be removed? Mr. C.C. ( talk) 04:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a split in this article, to Indigenous languages of the North America and Mexico, and Indigenous languages of the central and South America, since it's pretty certain the first peoples in the continents did not cross the Caribbean. Whether it was Muskogeans or Arawakans or even Caribans who inhabited the Caribbean, this probably happened later than the initial migration to the Americas, or can you see Cuba from Florida? Calusa might belong to any of those, if I've understood correctly? 80.186.30.5 ( talk) 08:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, please is there any forum or newsgroup for discussion about native indian languages? Please include in links. this is not yours wikipedia or mine wikipedia. Share information!! -- 79.132.187.250 ( talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Native Cherokee Lexicon Translation Project. -- Wavelength ( talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't find it in any of the lists, only mentioned in the running text - why? CapnZapp ( talk) 15:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I just revised the background section, reorganized the article structure, added several tables (proposals, language areas, more), and made the article look nicer. Enjoy! — Stevey7788 ( talk) 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
"""""North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. California alone has 18 genetic units consisting of 74 languages (compared to the mere 3 genetic units in all of Europe: Basque, Indo-European, Uralic).[3]"""""
It has at least four, turkish is not uralic, at least if you talk about uralic altaic family it would include also Turkish language.
If you consider Europe as its official extension, there are more genetic units, for example caucasian, and mongolian (Kalmyk people in caucasus, and I'm sure i'm forgetting some, like Semitic of Malta, who are arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.238.114 ( talk) 20:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I was just going to add that in the Southeastern corner of Europe, the province of Thrace has been inhabited by a Turkic speaking population since at least the 16th century I think. I was just thinking that whether it's called Altaic, or Uralic, it should be noted as being the fourth language group in Europe, shouldn't it? Prestlll ( talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've redirected Salumã language, but is that what was intended? Same name, wrong language, maybe? And is Patagon language(s) just Chon? I'm hoping to get rid of all the red links. (Ethn. also has a Salumá, but that's Cariban.) — kwami ( talk) 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Mexico is in North America - why the barrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Some of these are cultures or peoples with unattested languages:
Mato Grosso Arara language (iso3), Colima,
Comechingón, Huancavilca =
Manteño civilization, Humahuaca = Omaguaca, Karahawyana, Korubo (now classified), Sanavirón,
Tremembé language (iso3)
Quingnam distinct, or Moche?
Some details, but not found in SIL search: Umbra: La palabra umbrá en su lengua significa "de la cordillera". Esta lengua aún es hablada por varios centenares de personas y aún no ha sido clasificada. Supposedly still spoken in Colombia.
(spurious?) or just unattested: [1]
Lenguas preincaicas de la cuenca del Marañón: Copallen, Rabona, Tabancale, Sacata, Bagua, Patagon [currently a dab], Malacato, Bolona, Xiroa, Chirino, Chacha
— kwami ( talk) 07:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Others we don't cover:
The following blue links are simply redirects: Teushen language (to Chon), Nonuya language, Andoquero and Coeruna language (to Bora-Witoto), Tairona language and Old Catío-Nutabe language (to Chibchan), Mocana language (to Malibu), Patagon language (a dab). — kwami ( talk) 06:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Odd that we list all these barely attested, or even unattested, languages of S.Am. when we don't have Yamasee or Guale for N.Am. — kwami ( talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
is there any way to include and actual (e.g. current) map? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's the list of names in Ruhlen (1987), to make sure we get redirects for them all. This is clipped from a digital copy, but that was done by hand, so non-obvious red links should be checked against the hard copy before making rd's. —
kwami (
talk)
10:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Language names in Ruhlen (1987) for full list of names in G's classification
Red links and uncertain IDs for Amerindian languages listed in Ruhlen (1987)
|
---|
Most of these languages are listed (along with many other names) in Loukotka (1968) with "[nothing]" known about them, but a few (¶) are not found in Loukotka. (Most of these are apparent typos in Ruhlen, and I've removed the ⟨¶⟩ as I've ID'd them.)
Popayan§ (= Puben§), Burua* (Buruá), Taware§ (= Tawari, Tauaré), Caranga§¶ (dbl check: Lokoutka has as Aymara), Urupa* (= Ituarupa)¹, Herisobocono* (Herisebocon), Ocorono§, San Ignacio§, Cushichineri* (= Kushichineri, Cuchichineri, Cushitineri), Cutinana* (≈ Aguano?), Casharari* (≠ Kaxarari?), Catiana§, Wainamari§ (Lokoutka has as Arawa), Pucapacuri* (Pucapucari), Puncuri§, Sirimeri (=Mashco, Sirineiri), Sae§, Mawacua§ (Mawakwa), Guanebucan§, Cuati§ (= Coati-tapuya = Kapité-Mínanei), Izaneni§ (Adzáneni), Itayaine§¶, Fitita*, Kumayena* (Ocomayana), Arinagoto*, Caripuna (mis-ID'd per E17), Sinabo*, Zurina* (unknown language), Capuibo* (unknown), Niarawa*¶ [Niaragua, Niamagua], Pichobo* (unknown), Araua* (unknown), Mayubo*¶, Rëmoxbo [can't confirm name anywhere. maybe Remo+shibo?]*¶, Yamaluba*, Guariza§ (missions of Reyes & San Antonio de Isiama), Chumana*, Capachene* (= Capechene, unknown language), Mabenaro*, Aravira*, Dorin*¶ (Mason 1950 lists as 4th branch of Kaingang), [4] Chiqui* (Xiqui), Amho*, Acroa, Aricobe* (Akaroa – Lakoutka listed separately from Acroa/Coroa), The Aricobe listed for Zisa is Tupian Guegue* (Goguez),
|
¹ I redirected Urupa to Oro Win, but need to confirm; have not found a source that lists both names
Why is Guaraní not on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sapir's remarks are little short of dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
About half the Indian langauages in North America have been wiped out. Navaho, however, has actually benefitted from the introduction of modern medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 ( talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Indigenous languages of the Americas. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this correct? Surely across the whole of the Americas the majority of first contacts were later than the end of the 15th century? And this wording makes it sound as if lots of contacts were happening between the very limited early Nordic contact and Columbus' voyages, whereas AFAIK there was nothing happening at all. 81.132.196.237 ( talk) 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, "Thousands of languages..." needs a footnote. I find "there were perhaps a thousand languages spoken in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans - about 250 in the present territory of the United States alone." at http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFLohr ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
ONE citation for several paragraphs (not counting another ref that is not directly related to the topic)? This needs to be firmed up with Reliable Sources. Also, the claim of "thousands of languages" is highly suspect (speaking as a historian.) A solid reference(s) is required here. Note that lingquistically, there is a difference between 'language' and 'dialect.' Please help to validate this section properly. 104.169.26.177 ( talk) 06:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indigenous languages of the Americas. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have asked User:2001:4C4D:1E43:700:F9FD:F445:6535:A4B3 to stop making changes to the Unattested languages section without explanation, and to discuss such changes here on the talk page before doing so again. - Donald Albury 21:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I consulted the table of native speakers verifying some information and found it very incomplete and kind of vague in some references. I decided to add all languages with more than 100 thousand speakers in Mexico's Indigenous Language report because I think they are needed to be known. As a matter of fact there was a moment when I considered add all the 2015 report but I did not, I only added two very small speakers number languages which I feel very depressed on them disappearing, maybe a PhD candidate can save some knowledge about them. I deleted a circular reference on nahuatl and on blackfoot and add the number of speakers and a reference to Greenland language. I also translated this table and copied to the Spanish version of wikipedia [1]. As per my understanding this is common knowledge and I hope no one get mad on this. Health and peace, El Alfa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.202.135 ( talk) 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Current sentence: "According to UNESCO, most of the indigenous American languages are critically endangered, and many are currently dormant without first language speakers, or extinct."
Proposed sentence: "According to UNESCO, most of the indigenous American languages are critically endangered, many are currently dormant, and some are likely to be irrevocably lost."
Reason for proposal:
I had revised this sentence from 'and many are extinct' to 'and many are currently dormant without first language speakers'. Very quickly, another editor re-inserted 'or extinct', with a rationale that there are languages that are almost certainly irrecoverable, and there's 'no need to euphemize'.
But replacing 'extinct' with 'dormant' isn't euphemizing, it's accurate for most Indigenous American languages that no longer have active speakership, but that do have at least some documentation (of the language and/or of closely related languages, cf. the work of Jessie Little Doe Baird on Wampanoag, and of Daryl Baldwin on Myaamia), and surviving humans. Using 'extinct' has been identified by many dormant language communities as perpetuating harmful misconceptions.
Linguists started using the term 'extinct' to refer to language endangerment largely following work by Michael Krauss and others in the early 1990s, and for a time it was the accepted terminology within the scholarly community to use for any language that no longer had L1 speakers. That's no longer the case, and its acceptance in the past was part of a rhetorical strategy adopted by Krauss et al to get linguists to wake up and do something about language loss. Krauss et al's terminology continues to be used in the UNESCO document cited (which is why I added a more recent source for the use of 'dormant' instead), and in lots of places, but that's legacy - and is no longer accepted by most scholars in the field.
There is consensus, though that some languages are probably not recoverable, due to the lack of both sufficient documentation and a surviving community. I'm hopeful that others will find the proposed edit above acceptable, and if so, I'll roll it into the article.
-- AmyFou ( talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Lehmann (1920) recognized that Mè'phàà was closely related to the geographically distant Subtiaba (also known as Nagranda or Maribio), a dormant and sparsely documented language that was spoken around León, Nicaragua (Campbell, 1975).
Nevertheless, Siraya still exists as a relatively well documented dormant language.
Some who attended the event expressed their doubts at the possibility of reviving a dormant language.
Siraya, a language that is now extinct
in 1895, Siraya was almost extinct
there were at least 25 Formosan languages. Today, ten of these have become extinct