![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |
|
I have deleted the following statement from the "Phrases" section:
"Hokahe!" is a phrase used by traditional Lakota people during battle. It means "let's go". Crazy Horse was known to use it to mean "charge!" It can be contracted to just "ho!". According to a Lakota Holy Man, Eagle Voice, as recounted by Nebraska poet John Neihardt, it is literally translated as "Hold fast. There is more!" [1]
The New Lakota Dictionary gives two senses under the entry hókahé: 1) Welcome! exclamation for greeting a visitor; 2) exclamation for the start of a race or a joint effort. It seems to me that the dictionary is a more reliable source than that given in the hokahe paragraph (Bobby Bridger). If it was up to me I would delete the whole Phrases section unless it contains a list of phrases. Thiyopa ( talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Im sure I read somewhere years ago that shouting Hókahé meant 'Its a good day to die' during a battle. Is there any basis for this or is it pure 'Hollywood'? Thanks 2winjustonce ( talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The word orthography is defined as "A set of conventions for representing language in a written form" (O'Grady et al. 2001). Since the alphabet is the main convention used for writing Lakhota (others include things like writing from left to right, using punctuation, etc.), I think that Alphabet should be a sub-section of Orthography, rather than a section of Sound system with equal prominence. Cnilep ( talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Changed. Thiyopa ( talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This pair of additions notes that the standard orthography is not accepted by all speakers, a point that I think bears mention. This subsequent edit helpfully adds a source, but the source is the preface to a work on Dakota history and legend. The preface mentions that some of the author's sources differ from what she calls "the 'accepted' spelling" and "the 'correct' spelling" (scare-quotes in original). Can we find a more apropos third-party source? Cnilep ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no information whatsoever about the source of the orthography for Lakota? The general history is, afaik, not really in dispute, text quoted from ( [1] although I don't know if this counts as a qualified source): (I've replaced their use of Sioux with Lakota) "The first alphabet for Lakota, known as Riggs, was devised by the missionaries Samuel and Gideon Pond, Stephen Return Riggs and Dr Thomas S. Williamson in 1834. They based their spelling system on the Santee dialect (Dakota) and used it to translate biblical texts into that dialect. The Dakota translation of the bible was well known and used among the Dakota and Lakota. A revised version of this system was used in Riggs' Dakota Grammar, published in 1852, and in his Dakota-English dictionary, published in 1890. Since then a number of other Lakota and Dakota spelling systems have been devised." It feels like the Riggs impact on the original Orthography of Lakota has been missed almost deliberately, it's such a glaring omission. Styopa ( talk) 03:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I downgraded the article from B to C because of insufficient sourcing. By that I mean that the number of inline citations is insufficient, generally there should be at least one citation per section/long paragraph to merit B-class. Also the better part of the citations are to Rood and Taylors rather basic sketch in HNIA - I am sure there are more comprehensive sources (including journal articles) that could benefit the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the Lakota language is endangered (average speaker age is 65), I think it would be helpful to mention any immersion programs (be they in schools, colleges or universities) that have been implemented to teach Lakota and Sioux youth their ancestral language so that it does not become lost. Ericster08 ( talk) 03:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently rolled back a large series of edits that changed the orthography on this page from IPA to Standard Lakota Orthography. WP:MOSIPA calls for transcription using broad IPA, though I think Lakota words can be written in the SLO if that is the consensus among editors. (Even then, there should not be SLO renderings for example within IPA templates, though.)
In rolling back the edits I appear to have removed some valuable additions. I'm afraid I don't have time just now to evaluate each of the changes and figure out which ones were useful (I know, I know, I probably shouldn't have edited if I didn't have time to do a proper job). Unfortunately the IP editor who made those changes doesn't have a talk page. I invite others to evaluate the changes, and will try to get back to it in a week or so. Cnilep ( talk) 07:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(new user in conversation) I apologize for the Orthographical changes, I had not read the WP:MOSIPA article and did not realize fully what I was doing. Sorry for the hassle it created. I re-added the Ablaut section which was accidentally erased. I did not add anything more, just a repost of the existing Ablaut changes. mikekat93 ( talk) 10:22, October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
Is it an oversight that the ejective fricatives are not listed in the alphabet table? — kwami ( talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems not quite appropriate to me. At least, it seems to go beyond what is claimed in the source it cites. Palmer suggests that the texts she collected use a variety of spelling conventions, including many that differ from what she calls "the 'correct' spelling". That is, Palmer puts "correct" in scare quotes. She does not say that this spelling is phonetic (all ways of writing Lakota that I have seen are at least phonographic in principle, meaning they attempt to represent the pronunciation of words), and although one might infer from her scare quotes that Palmer regards the variants as correct, she does not state so explicitly, nor does she claim that anyone else says so.
Furthermore, as I noted above, Palmer's book is not principally interested in the Lakota language but in the history recorded in Lakota/Dakota/Nakoda stories and myths. It is therefore not a very good source for assertions about orthography.
I am of the opinion that Maunus's 22 December version was good, and that Uyvsdi's 23 December edits are not a step forward and may actually introduce some errors or potential misunderstanding. Cnilep ( talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Page two of Palmer's introduction reads (in relevant part),
As I read it, Palmer states explicitly that many spellings exist, but only implies that she considers many variants correct. Other inferences are also possible. On the other hand, I was mistaken when I said she doesn't call them phonetic; she does. Again, though, this is her description of the texts she is quoting, not a general description of the state of Lakota orthography. Cnilep ( talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This article and several others on Wikipedia claim that Lakota has ejective fricatives. I have just now trawled the linguistic literature and have nowhere seen any testaments to this claim. I even personally asked a couple of linguists who have worked on the language and they indicated that they had never encountered ejective fricatives in the language. Since these sounds are remarkably rare cross-linguistically, this article needs an explicit citation for them and should also give some example vocabulary including them.
There is some confusion in the linguistic literature regarding the difference between glottalized and ejective sounds, particularly in North Americanist work where the phonetic distinction was historically either ignored or not made clear. It may be that an enthusiastic contributor has misinterpreted some transcriptions that actually describe glottalized fricatives, i.e. sounds like [ʔs] or [sʔ], which are phonetically distinct from [sʼ] and use an entirely different airstream mechanism (pulmonic egressive rather than glottalic egressive). Or possibly someone has misinterpreted the term “glottalized” as equivalent to “ejective”, whereas these two terms are distinct today. In any case, if no linguistic literature can be brought to bear on this issue, then I must insist that the claims in this article for Lakota’s use of ejective fricatives be removed. — 74.61.126.106 ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
One should urgently give sources of what is claimed in the different sections. It is e.g. not verifiable if there are really 4 articles in Lakhota, since no source is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrafao ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 October 2012
This article currently has a 'Notes' section, which includes a number of citations referencing the content. It also includes a 'References' section, which lists three more sources. The 'Further reading' section lists more publications that are not directly cited in the article.
This should be cleaned up, so that either the footnotes give the full reference (as is the case for most of them now) or the footnotes point to sources that are listed in a separate References section (as I think is the case only for Jessica Palmer's book). Templates such as {{ cite journal}} and {{ cite book}} are available to help with this.
I usually prefer the simpler, footnotes-only style, but many good articles use citation footnotes plus a list of references; see for example Greenlandic language. In contrast, International Phonetic Alphabet uses what I'm calling "footnotes only"; its "Notes" section is for explanatory asides.
Before I proceed with any changes, though, I want to find out if other editors have a preference for one-part ("footnotes only") or two-part (footnotes plus reference list) citations. Cnilep ( talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The text refers to voiceless aspirated plosives, but they're not represented in the consonant chart. Chuck Entz ( talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lakota language. 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) 03:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Thnidu: and others: <ŋ> was added to the list of "consonants [that] approximate their IPA values". But I thought <ŋ> is used to mark nasalization, not as a consonant as such. For example <kaŋsu'> is pronounced [kãsuʔ], not [kaŋsuʔ]. Am I mistaken? Cnilep ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
These appearances sometimes make the Lakota sound slow and monotonic (kind of "Tarzan-speak"), or like each sentence has a legendary poetical wisdom. 192.116.89.165 ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The answer might be in the article, but tl;dr: Why do names are translated? It is unusual.
Non of you call the Biblical Deborah "a bee", right? So why it is different with Tkhashungke Witko? 192.116.89.165 ( talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Oncamera has reverted my edits from
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two Siouan languages ( Dakota and Nakota)"
to
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two languages (such as Dakota language)"
and then
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language"
The basis for these reverts has been that Lakota is not mutually intelligible with Nakota. "The Nakota language page literally explains in detail how the languages are not understood by D/Lakota people.)"
Okay, the Nakota page does indeed assert that the language spoken by the Assiniboine is not mutually intelligible. Whether this language should be called "Nakota" has been debated, historically, but seems correct. However, the statement User:Oncamera has arrived at - "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language" - does not make sense. If Lakota is one of three dialects of Dakota, then what are the other two dialects? Dakota_language#Dialects says Dakota has only two dialects, Eastern and Western. Western Dakota was known as Nakota, erroneously, and was somewhat mutually intelligible with Lakota, which is described as a separate language.
Basically, "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the two dialects of the Dakota language, especially Western Dakota (which was previously known as Nakota. Nakota is a related language but is not mutually intelligible." Agreed?
Ewen ( talk) 08:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The Lakota Language Consortium, the publishers of the New Lakota Dictionary, has been writing sections in this article about the orthography that heavily sways an unbalanced view in the favor of their work and downplays the work of other institutions. The sources are primary sources, linked only to their website and published materials. oncamera (talk page) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is mere propaganda- IyaCrusher ( talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
For more info on the roots of the problem with groups like the LLC, and tying it into the larger issues of translation in general, check out this video. Recommendations for further reading in academic sources, and some detailed comparison of Albert White Hat's, vs LLC's (and Christian missionary's), conflicting translations of Lakota. Reg is a well-known language teacher in the community who has been standing up to the LLC. I think this is a really good commentary on the role of cultural lens in translation/linguistic work, and covers it well in a concise form, from a Lakota and Dakota perspective. I think it would be an excellent addition as an external link: Systemic racism in linguistics. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Public orgs are not "the private sphere". What you post on Wikipedia is not in "the private sphere". When someone who is involved in one of those orgs is editing to promote the org's interests - the way multiple, connected accounts have done on these articles - it is a violation of WP:COI policies. All Wikipedians are required to follow these rules. Administrators are tasked with enforcing these rules. We assume good faith unless there are reasons to question. It has nothing to do with you personally. If you are not one of the people in the group in question, we don't know you. This is about protecting the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
As I noted on their user talk, new account Malakota ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first blanked content critical of the LLC. Twice. The recent edits have a definite spin, that reads very promotional in favor of the LLC... even implying the use of LLC materials when the cited source doesn't mention them at all. I am seeing a continuation of the pattern. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No I do not have a conflict of interest at all. I work full time for a school that does not even use any official orthography but allows teachers to use what they prefer. I added information from sources and am being accused of saying that Red Cloud uses the same orthography as LLC when they don’t stare that. They don’t identify it as LLC’s orthography, but it just takes a simple comparison of their contents to see it’s the same! Red Cloud uses their own curriculum which they created as opposed to the LLC’s, but both institutions use the Standard (Suggested) Lakota Orthography. Other institutions have been working on creating their own curriculum as well and still using the orthography.
If it must be clarified, I work for Little Wound School. Again, we don’t have an official orthography and teachers are encouraged to use what they find useful. Malakota ( talk) 03:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't care which school you may be involved with. I know you are twice mentioned in at least one teacher's manual published by LLC. I'm not going to mention which one or the specific pages because it is not my wish to dox you. Not only is it against policy, it's also unethical to me personally. Indigenous girl ( talk) 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I assure you I have never been mentioned in any Teacher's Manual. I have never contributed to any LLC textbooks whatsoever. In fact, most of their materials were published before I had even started teaching Lakota. You must have me confused with someone else. Malakota ( talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |
|
I have deleted the following statement from the "Phrases" section:
"Hokahe!" is a phrase used by traditional Lakota people during battle. It means "let's go". Crazy Horse was known to use it to mean "charge!" It can be contracted to just "ho!". According to a Lakota Holy Man, Eagle Voice, as recounted by Nebraska poet John Neihardt, it is literally translated as "Hold fast. There is more!" [1]
The New Lakota Dictionary gives two senses under the entry hókahé: 1) Welcome! exclamation for greeting a visitor; 2) exclamation for the start of a race or a joint effort. It seems to me that the dictionary is a more reliable source than that given in the hokahe paragraph (Bobby Bridger). If it was up to me I would delete the whole Phrases section unless it contains a list of phrases. Thiyopa ( talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Im sure I read somewhere years ago that shouting Hókahé meant 'Its a good day to die' during a battle. Is there any basis for this or is it pure 'Hollywood'? Thanks 2winjustonce ( talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The word orthography is defined as "A set of conventions for representing language in a written form" (O'Grady et al. 2001). Since the alphabet is the main convention used for writing Lakhota (others include things like writing from left to right, using punctuation, etc.), I think that Alphabet should be a sub-section of Orthography, rather than a section of Sound system with equal prominence. Cnilep ( talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Changed. Thiyopa ( talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This pair of additions notes that the standard orthography is not accepted by all speakers, a point that I think bears mention. This subsequent edit helpfully adds a source, but the source is the preface to a work on Dakota history and legend. The preface mentions that some of the author's sources differ from what she calls "the 'accepted' spelling" and "the 'correct' spelling" (scare-quotes in original). Can we find a more apropos third-party source? Cnilep ( talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no information whatsoever about the source of the orthography for Lakota? The general history is, afaik, not really in dispute, text quoted from ( [1] although I don't know if this counts as a qualified source): (I've replaced their use of Sioux with Lakota) "The first alphabet for Lakota, known as Riggs, was devised by the missionaries Samuel and Gideon Pond, Stephen Return Riggs and Dr Thomas S. Williamson in 1834. They based their spelling system on the Santee dialect (Dakota) and used it to translate biblical texts into that dialect. The Dakota translation of the bible was well known and used among the Dakota and Lakota. A revised version of this system was used in Riggs' Dakota Grammar, published in 1852, and in his Dakota-English dictionary, published in 1890. Since then a number of other Lakota and Dakota spelling systems have been devised." It feels like the Riggs impact on the original Orthography of Lakota has been missed almost deliberately, it's such a glaring omission. Styopa ( talk) 03:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I downgraded the article from B to C because of insufficient sourcing. By that I mean that the number of inline citations is insufficient, generally there should be at least one citation per section/long paragraph to merit B-class. Also the better part of the citations are to Rood and Taylors rather basic sketch in HNIA - I am sure there are more comprehensive sources (including journal articles) that could benefit the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the Lakota language is endangered (average speaker age is 65), I think it would be helpful to mention any immersion programs (be they in schools, colleges or universities) that have been implemented to teach Lakota and Sioux youth their ancestral language so that it does not become lost. Ericster08 ( talk) 03:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently rolled back a large series of edits that changed the orthography on this page from IPA to Standard Lakota Orthography. WP:MOSIPA calls for transcription using broad IPA, though I think Lakota words can be written in the SLO if that is the consensus among editors. (Even then, there should not be SLO renderings for example within IPA templates, though.)
In rolling back the edits I appear to have removed some valuable additions. I'm afraid I don't have time just now to evaluate each of the changes and figure out which ones were useful (I know, I know, I probably shouldn't have edited if I didn't have time to do a proper job). Unfortunately the IP editor who made those changes doesn't have a talk page. I invite others to evaluate the changes, and will try to get back to it in a week or so. Cnilep ( talk) 07:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(new user in conversation) I apologize for the Orthographical changes, I had not read the WP:MOSIPA article and did not realize fully what I was doing. Sorry for the hassle it created. I re-added the Ablaut section which was accidentally erased. I did not add anything more, just a repost of the existing Ablaut changes. mikekat93 ( talk) 10:22, October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
Is it an oversight that the ejective fricatives are not listed in the alphabet table? — kwami ( talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems not quite appropriate to me. At least, it seems to go beyond what is claimed in the source it cites. Palmer suggests that the texts she collected use a variety of spelling conventions, including many that differ from what she calls "the 'correct' spelling". That is, Palmer puts "correct" in scare quotes. She does not say that this spelling is phonetic (all ways of writing Lakota that I have seen are at least phonographic in principle, meaning they attempt to represent the pronunciation of words), and although one might infer from her scare quotes that Palmer regards the variants as correct, she does not state so explicitly, nor does she claim that anyone else says so.
Furthermore, as I noted above, Palmer's book is not principally interested in the Lakota language but in the history recorded in Lakota/Dakota/Nakoda stories and myths. It is therefore not a very good source for assertions about orthography.
I am of the opinion that Maunus's 22 December version was good, and that Uyvsdi's 23 December edits are not a step forward and may actually introduce some errors or potential misunderstanding. Cnilep ( talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Page two of Palmer's introduction reads (in relevant part),
As I read it, Palmer states explicitly that many spellings exist, but only implies that she considers many variants correct. Other inferences are also possible. On the other hand, I was mistaken when I said she doesn't call them phonetic; she does. Again, though, this is her description of the texts she is quoting, not a general description of the state of Lakota orthography. Cnilep ( talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This article and several others on Wikipedia claim that Lakota has ejective fricatives. I have just now trawled the linguistic literature and have nowhere seen any testaments to this claim. I even personally asked a couple of linguists who have worked on the language and they indicated that they had never encountered ejective fricatives in the language. Since these sounds are remarkably rare cross-linguistically, this article needs an explicit citation for them and should also give some example vocabulary including them.
There is some confusion in the linguistic literature regarding the difference between glottalized and ejective sounds, particularly in North Americanist work where the phonetic distinction was historically either ignored or not made clear. It may be that an enthusiastic contributor has misinterpreted some transcriptions that actually describe glottalized fricatives, i.e. sounds like [ʔs] or [sʔ], which are phonetically distinct from [sʼ] and use an entirely different airstream mechanism (pulmonic egressive rather than glottalic egressive). Or possibly someone has misinterpreted the term “glottalized” as equivalent to “ejective”, whereas these two terms are distinct today. In any case, if no linguistic literature can be brought to bear on this issue, then I must insist that the claims in this article for Lakota’s use of ejective fricatives be removed. — 74.61.126.106 ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
One should urgently give sources of what is claimed in the different sections. It is e.g. not verifiable if there are really 4 articles in Lakhota, since no source is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrafao ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 October 2012
This article currently has a 'Notes' section, which includes a number of citations referencing the content. It also includes a 'References' section, which lists three more sources. The 'Further reading' section lists more publications that are not directly cited in the article.
This should be cleaned up, so that either the footnotes give the full reference (as is the case for most of them now) or the footnotes point to sources that are listed in a separate References section (as I think is the case only for Jessica Palmer's book). Templates such as {{ cite journal}} and {{ cite book}} are available to help with this.
I usually prefer the simpler, footnotes-only style, but many good articles use citation footnotes plus a list of references; see for example Greenlandic language. In contrast, International Phonetic Alphabet uses what I'm calling "footnotes only"; its "Notes" section is for explanatory asides.
Before I proceed with any changes, though, I want to find out if other editors have a preference for one-part ("footnotes only") or two-part (footnotes plus reference list) citations. Cnilep ( talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The text refers to voiceless aspirated plosives, but they're not represented in the consonant chart. Chuck Entz ( talk) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lakota language. 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) 03:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Thnidu: and others: <ŋ> was added to the list of "consonants [that] approximate their IPA values". But I thought <ŋ> is used to mark nasalization, not as a consonant as such. For example <kaŋsu'> is pronounced [kãsuʔ], not [kaŋsuʔ]. Am I mistaken? Cnilep ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
These appearances sometimes make the Lakota sound slow and monotonic (kind of "Tarzan-speak"), or like each sentence has a legendary poetical wisdom. 192.116.89.165 ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The answer might be in the article, but tl;dr: Why do names are translated? It is unusual.
Non of you call the Biblical Deborah "a bee", right? So why it is different with Tkhashungke Witko? 192.116.89.165 ( talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Oncamera has reverted my edits from
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two Siouan languages ( Dakota and Nakota)"
to
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two languages (such as Dakota language)"
and then
"Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language"
The basis for these reverts has been that Lakota is not mutually intelligible with Nakota. "The Nakota language page literally explains in detail how the languages are not understood by D/Lakota people.)"
Okay, the Nakota page does indeed assert that the language spoken by the Assiniboine is not mutually intelligible. Whether this language should be called "Nakota" has been debated, historically, but seems correct. However, the statement User:Oncamera has arrived at - "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the other two dialects of the Dakota language" - does not make sense. If Lakota is one of three dialects of Dakota, then what are the other two dialects? Dakota_language#Dialects says Dakota has only two dialects, Eastern and Western. Western Dakota was known as Nakota, erroneously, and was somewhat mutually intelligible with Lakota, which is described as a separate language.
Basically, "Lakota is mutually intelligible with the two dialects of the Dakota language, especially Western Dakota (which was previously known as Nakota. Nakota is a related language but is not mutually intelligible." Agreed?
Ewen ( talk) 08:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The Lakota Language Consortium, the publishers of the New Lakota Dictionary, has been writing sections in this article about the orthography that heavily sways an unbalanced view in the favor of their work and downplays the work of other institutions. The sources are primary sources, linked only to their website and published materials. oncamera (talk page) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is mere propaganda- IyaCrusher ( talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
For more info on the roots of the problem with groups like the LLC, and tying it into the larger issues of translation in general, check out this video. Recommendations for further reading in academic sources, and some detailed comparison of Albert White Hat's, vs LLC's (and Christian missionary's), conflicting translations of Lakota. Reg is a well-known language teacher in the community who has been standing up to the LLC. I think this is a really good commentary on the role of cultural lens in translation/linguistic work, and covers it well in a concise form, from a Lakota and Dakota perspective. I think it would be an excellent addition as an external link: Systemic racism in linguistics. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Public orgs are not "the private sphere". What you post on Wikipedia is not in "the private sphere". When someone who is involved in one of those orgs is editing to promote the org's interests - the way multiple, connected accounts have done on these articles - it is a violation of WP:COI policies. All Wikipedians are required to follow these rules. Administrators are tasked with enforcing these rules. We assume good faith unless there are reasons to question. It has nothing to do with you personally. If you are not one of the people in the group in question, we don't know you. This is about protecting the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
As I noted on their user talk, new account Malakota ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first blanked content critical of the LLC. Twice. The recent edits have a definite spin, that reads very promotional in favor of the LLC... even implying the use of LLC materials when the cited source doesn't mention them at all. I am seeing a continuation of the pattern. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No I do not have a conflict of interest at all. I work full time for a school that does not even use any official orthography but allows teachers to use what they prefer. I added information from sources and am being accused of saying that Red Cloud uses the same orthography as LLC when they don’t stare that. They don’t identify it as LLC’s orthography, but it just takes a simple comparison of their contents to see it’s the same! Red Cloud uses their own curriculum which they created as opposed to the LLC’s, but both institutions use the Standard (Suggested) Lakota Orthography. Other institutions have been working on creating their own curriculum as well and still using the orthography.
If it must be clarified, I work for Little Wound School. Again, we don’t have an official orthography and teachers are encouraged to use what they find useful. Malakota ( talk) 03:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't care which school you may be involved with. I know you are twice mentioned in at least one teacher's manual published by LLC. I'm not going to mention which one or the specific pages because it is not my wish to dox you. Not only is it against policy, it's also unethical to me personally. Indigenous girl ( talk) 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I assure you I have never been mentioned in any Teacher's Manual. I have never contributed to any LLC textbooks whatsoever. In fact, most of their materials were published before I had even started teaching Lakota. You must have me confused with someone else. Malakota ( talk) 11:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)