![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The opening paragraph has many errors. I want to reduce it, eliminating errors. I would rather rewrite it, but I am far afield from my current tasks. I'll wait until Monday (2006/10/09) to do this. Any comments? -- meatclerk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I also note I have two more section tonight. One more paragraph under Name and another under Population. -- meatclerk 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I did fixed intro up a little. Goldenrowley 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reorganizing the outline as follows for better readibility, with less overlapping of sections. Goldenrowley 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Contents [hide] Contents [hide]
---
Sorry Bruce, but I thought I needed to make this clear. Technically, the Costanoan are not hunter-gathers. This definition is being seperated, likely as I write this, to proto-farmers. The evidence on this is that many so-called "stone-age" people that were living then, now are highlighted as proto-farmers becuase they would burn "open fields" to promote seed growth. Certainly, this was the case with the Costanoans. Travelers accounts, as well as missionary accounts show this. Also were confrontation between Spainards and Indians.
In one noted case, a cow had wandered onto an open pasture. The Indians seeing it as an encrochment on to thier territory, killed the cow and proceeded to eat it. The soilders saw it as thievery. The Spanish response was to imprison(sp?) the natives and whip them. The Missionaries later realized this and boundaries were set up for settlers, converted indians and unconverted indians. To this day the reservations, in part, acknowledges this need for land.
On other matters, I'm sorry I won't converse much over the next week, but the rain has started and I'm stuck inside, and that means I'm concentration on organizing my records. There are 5 more used books on indians I am picking up today, all on California indians from several authors - Bean and Whipple noted amoung them. -- meatclerk 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I should also note I am tired. -- meatclerk 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This section begun by Goldenrowley 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) but is editable/negotiable by you (other editors). Your opinion Counts! Here are all Proposed topics from the 001 list: I've started them out by suggesting what section the topic belongs under if added to the article. This would be only a very preliminary checkoff list to remember suggested topics. These topics might be one sentence to paragraphs. As items are covered please remove to bottom of this list between the 's' marks:
Description Section:
History Section:
Mythology Section:
Modern or Current Affairs Section:
striking topics as not applicable to Ohlone: # in the mines, # salt journey, # treaties, # as witnesses
Topics already finished/covered: # appearance and dress, # boats, # dwellings,# employment of, # foods, # rancherias or villages, # sickness among, #servants, # tribes and groups, # language. # mounds made by, attacks and uprisings,
Contents as of 10/6/07
One concern - Shouldn't Language and words go on the Utian languages or Costanoan language page? See Karkin language for example - If Karkin get their own page for language what about the other divisions...
Your thoughts. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In review of everything so far, I think I will just let you continue. You know the stuff I have and I will continue reading. Your writing seems to be better than mine, except I might have different opening paragraphs. Even so, I will wait until you are done, read, make additions, correction, etc, then we can move from there. If anything looks majorly wrong, I will let you know. Does this sound good? Is majorly poor english, like swell? -- meatclerk 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I thougth it would be good to get some notes on this issue, even though we may not resolve it. Currently we have hunter-gatherer, proto-farmer or hunter-harvester. The complete notes will be done on Wens or Thurs with all the pluses and minuses on each. -- meatclerk 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a note to let you know I am done with the note for hunter-gather vs. others. Tonight I am working on my version of wikipedia, alias wikitype, and the notes for this will be available later tomorrow. Right now I am a bit tired, but plan on finishing up before 1am. Tomorrow last day off, then my brother is in town, so that cuts into this. In any case, the notes should be available tomorrow some time, with some luck. -- meatclerk 06:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The notes are done. I should do one (1) more revision to check for errors, but I think I am done. The notes can be transfered to wikipedia, if need be, but the last few pages I simply scanned, as the matter seem relevant. This pagelink should provide sufficent material without explaination, but let me know eithe way. http://www.didgood.com/wikitype/hunter-gatherer/ -- meatclerk 09:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The populations from 1770 to 1920 will be revisited and checked, as soon as I go to the library tomorrow. I don't think we should mention Ishi as he's not an Ohlone (so his life is not the subject) and it seems conjectural that his being the "last Indian" changed the course of the research of the Ohlone people by triggering all sort of jealousy . Any news or progress on hunter gathering sources and other topics? Goldenrowley 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Milliken has a nice book with great points and great list of tribes at the back. I'll be adding a book report to the talk section, after gathering my thoughts. I think the article should definitely mention the wave of conversions in 1795, and then what happened afterward. To answer one of the earliest questions I can agree, as has been suggested in archoves 001 to standarize the spelling in the article by Milliken with a footnote. If all agree it can be one of the things we can do. Goldenrowley 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
J, Nice harvestor research ..and source gathering. Well my feeling is its published so its not breaking the original research rule. I'd link to go back to having the link to hunter-gatherer and add the additional research right after. I think it would be very interesting to place 1-2 sentence quote in the article from one of these sources. I think the article on hunter-gatherer page is a good one, it says that it is not exclusive. I also read the women planted or kept fields of grass seeds, had a run in with the settlers over whose grass it was... Goldenrowley 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that the Costanoan languages were all just dialects of one 'Costanoan language'. While the different Costanoan languages were similar, they were in fact different languages. Chocheño, Mutsun, and Rumsen are the best-documented Costanoan languages, and it's clear they were quite distinct. Karkin, Santa Cruz and Soledad are much more poorly documented, but they look quite distinct as well. The only cluster of dialects one could posit are Chocheño and the dialects of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties, which might have been dialects of one language. The various articles of Catherine Callaghan in the International Journal of American Linguistics over the past 20 years are a good source for this. -Anon., Oct. 14 2006
Unless anyone disagrees, I will proceed to add Milliken spellings as alternative spellings for tribelets, and a parenthesis that spellings are given to the best of our ability (I can quote Milliken exactly on that and cite him) Goldenrowley 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
word as listed in articles | Milliken | Merriam | Mission spellings |
---|---|---|---|
Ohlone | Ojlon | Ahlone | Alonee, Ojlone, etc. |
I am not sure if I like a table better its certainly clearer but may be a full page or more... Goldenrowley 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, a really big migration wave was in 1795 (1 year), and it caused a big repurcussion that year... since I researched it, I'll try to get the exact citation tonight. Goldenrowley 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The intro does not make sense with today's revision, all of a sudden says that Costenos is English misspelling for Ohlone. I liked the old intro much better? Goldenrowley 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-Is the language called Costanoan or Ohlonean ? Or both. Goldenrowley 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-FYI, Lamchin page linked to this page has been marked needs "cleanup" for the past year... if anyone is so inclined to help it. Goldenrowley 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I flagged the Merriam Ohlonean sentence - page 40 of Teixeiria On the same page says Merriam made up the word Ohlonean for the language, it also says he had not training in Linguistics and seems to suggest it is a code name for "Costanoan/Ohlone". O think everyone else is using Costanoan.
....Guess what I got a Robot message tonight that the page is "longer than suggested" and suggesting that we break it down....would we care to move something to a subpage ? If so, what? I'd think move the Language discussions because its standard for language to have its own page and also you could use that neat language table idea. Goldenrowley 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote Lamchin and tagged it stub. It should be enough for now.
On village names, I'll wait until I re-read the entire article. Possibly Thurs. -- meatclerk 08:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
A quick read finds numerous errors. I can state plainly you are using much uncited material from the original article. While it looks attractive, it's in accurate. One of many examples is "these people had over 40 different tribal names". You might note the as you are adding village names, you are "well over 40". You might also look at Milliken pg. 228-229, a count there seems to be "well over 40"
I am repeating this to note you are quoting from the original article, again it was inaccurate. -- meatclerk 08:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've decide to create a general stub for all the Triblet and Villages, south of San Mateo to south the county line (San Franquito Creek). I'm not really happy with what I did for Lamchin. As such, today I'll make some time to do something. Likely about 4-6 sentences, whatever I can get from Brown and Milliken.
Comments please. -- meatclerk 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Tribes and Villages according to Milliken unless noted*
Tribes according to Milliken [1] | Also known as... [2] | Original Location | Known subgroups | |
Achista | - | Santa Cruz Mountains, Present-day Boulder Creek and Riverside Grove | tentatively includes Acsaggis | |
Alson | - | low marshlands at sourthern end of San Francisco Bay | - | |
Altahmo, Altagmu | - | * see Ssalson | - | |
Aleitac | - | * see Ssalson | - |
Do you guys prefer villages the bullet list or in "more graphic designed" table ? Let me know, I am just tossing out some formatting ideas. Goldenrowley 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I note the History section has the needed material. I was just stating that the citations on some of that information is available. Seperately, I have material on pre-mission contact with the natives, but that will wait until I have it completed. We have enough irons in the fire. -- meatclerk 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this table out of Population, why use it "it is not supported by others"? However I am imagining using the table design (without the population column) in anothr way, namely as the start of a "template" or Index at the bottom of all Ohlone pages Goldenrowley 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Note: Cartier does not agree with Cook's calculations in Book 2... not even close
Subgroups | Location | Est.Population |
Karkin | South edge of Carquinez Strait | 200 |
Chocheño | East side of San Francisco Bay | 2,000 |
Ramaytush | San Mateo and San Francisco Counties | 1,400 |
Tamyen | Southwest side San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley | 1,200 |
Awaswas | From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz Co. | 600 |
Mutsun | Pajaro River, San Benito River and San Felipe Creek | 2,700 |
Rumsen | Salinas, Lower Carmel and Sur Rivers | 800 |
Chalon | Upper Salinas drainage | 900 |
Note: These population counts by Cartier are not supported by other anthropologists (are not confirmed facts).
Is triblet a word?? (missing e, right?) Goldenrowley 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It occured to me that the map we have been using is incorrect. I note that many references say "Costanoan/Ohlone, a linguist group ...", but the term has wider meaning now. As such, here is a partial redefinition.
I say this because a few references used to have Coastal Miwok as Costanoan, but Milliken does not. Meaning that the linguistics reference has changed. However, the issue of the Mission Indians gets muddy now, because about 1810 Mission Dolores was sending their natives to Marin to recover from diseases. Likely, any surviving peninsula and east bay natives went there.
Now add to that the confusion of the 1840s. If any survived on the peninsula, of which evidence there is (Brown,1974 says 37 in 1822), and then the government calling calling them Costanoan until 1930s(Teixeira,1997 pg. 4), then their might be an issue. However, we could resolve this issue many ways. I.E. the latest Bureau of Entomology definition, or agree on a standard text, or make a reference to it in the article.. AnyHOW......
In any case, I would like to put this under the heading of "unresolved issues" and get back to it next month. The "history tab" says I have been at this since Oct 5, so I need to get back to the other articles. This means I need to finish everything started and put all new issues under the heading "unresolved issues". If you guys are good with that, then I will put this and several other issues in that file/subpage. Comments? -- meatclerk 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Truthfully, I did not get it. So, from Utian I followed the first external link. The language thing makes sense now. It looks like this:
Apparently, to confuse us, they are using tribe/tribelet names as language names. Maybe we should use this, on the main page; or language section at least.
On that, we should explain, there may be confusion: Some tribelets have been lumped into language groups, but they seem to share not political affiliation. In example, Karkin was a tribelet and a language group. Rumsen was also. Lumchin was a triblet in the sub-dialect Ramaytush.
All previous were of language group Penutian and subgroup Utian.
It's messy and uglier becuase the language is extincted.
On the stub, I changed and added a few things. 1) fake entry example for wikitionary.org 2) Split long sentence. 3) French and Russians brought diseases too, likely. But they really don't know. Most guess it was the soilders. 4) Hence, syphilis
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The opening paragraph has many errors. I want to reduce it, eliminating errors. I would rather rewrite it, but I am far afield from my current tasks. I'll wait until Monday (2006/10/09) to do this. Any comments? -- meatclerk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I also note I have two more section tonight. One more paragraph under Name and another under Population. -- meatclerk 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I did fixed intro up a little. Goldenrowley 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reorganizing the outline as follows for better readibility, with less overlapping of sections. Goldenrowley 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Contents [hide] Contents [hide]
---
Sorry Bruce, but I thought I needed to make this clear. Technically, the Costanoan are not hunter-gathers. This definition is being seperated, likely as I write this, to proto-farmers. The evidence on this is that many so-called "stone-age" people that were living then, now are highlighted as proto-farmers becuase they would burn "open fields" to promote seed growth. Certainly, this was the case with the Costanoans. Travelers accounts, as well as missionary accounts show this. Also were confrontation between Spainards and Indians.
In one noted case, a cow had wandered onto an open pasture. The Indians seeing it as an encrochment on to thier territory, killed the cow and proceeded to eat it. The soilders saw it as thievery. The Spanish response was to imprison(sp?) the natives and whip them. The Missionaries later realized this and boundaries were set up for settlers, converted indians and unconverted indians. To this day the reservations, in part, acknowledges this need for land.
On other matters, I'm sorry I won't converse much over the next week, but the rain has started and I'm stuck inside, and that means I'm concentration on organizing my records. There are 5 more used books on indians I am picking up today, all on California indians from several authors - Bean and Whipple noted amoung them. -- meatclerk 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I should also note I am tired. -- meatclerk 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This section begun by Goldenrowley 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) but is editable/negotiable by you (other editors). Your opinion Counts! Here are all Proposed topics from the 001 list: I've started them out by suggesting what section the topic belongs under if added to the article. This would be only a very preliminary checkoff list to remember suggested topics. These topics might be one sentence to paragraphs. As items are covered please remove to bottom of this list between the 's' marks:
Description Section:
History Section:
Mythology Section:
Modern or Current Affairs Section:
striking topics as not applicable to Ohlone: # in the mines, # salt journey, # treaties, # as witnesses
Topics already finished/covered: # appearance and dress, # boats, # dwellings,# employment of, # foods, # rancherias or villages, # sickness among, #servants, # tribes and groups, # language. # mounds made by, attacks and uprisings,
Contents as of 10/6/07
One concern - Shouldn't Language and words go on the Utian languages or Costanoan language page? See Karkin language for example - If Karkin get their own page for language what about the other divisions...
Your thoughts. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In review of everything so far, I think I will just let you continue. You know the stuff I have and I will continue reading. Your writing seems to be better than mine, except I might have different opening paragraphs. Even so, I will wait until you are done, read, make additions, correction, etc, then we can move from there. If anything looks majorly wrong, I will let you know. Does this sound good? Is majorly poor english, like swell? -- meatclerk 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I thougth it would be good to get some notes on this issue, even though we may not resolve it. Currently we have hunter-gatherer, proto-farmer or hunter-harvester. The complete notes will be done on Wens or Thurs with all the pluses and minuses on each. -- meatclerk 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a note to let you know I am done with the note for hunter-gather vs. others. Tonight I am working on my version of wikipedia, alias wikitype, and the notes for this will be available later tomorrow. Right now I am a bit tired, but plan on finishing up before 1am. Tomorrow last day off, then my brother is in town, so that cuts into this. In any case, the notes should be available tomorrow some time, with some luck. -- meatclerk 06:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The notes are done. I should do one (1) more revision to check for errors, but I think I am done. The notes can be transfered to wikipedia, if need be, but the last few pages I simply scanned, as the matter seem relevant. This pagelink should provide sufficent material without explaination, but let me know eithe way. http://www.didgood.com/wikitype/hunter-gatherer/ -- meatclerk 09:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The populations from 1770 to 1920 will be revisited and checked, as soon as I go to the library tomorrow. I don't think we should mention Ishi as he's not an Ohlone (so his life is not the subject) and it seems conjectural that his being the "last Indian" changed the course of the research of the Ohlone people by triggering all sort of jealousy . Any news or progress on hunter gathering sources and other topics? Goldenrowley 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Milliken has a nice book with great points and great list of tribes at the back. I'll be adding a book report to the talk section, after gathering my thoughts. I think the article should definitely mention the wave of conversions in 1795, and then what happened afterward. To answer one of the earliest questions I can agree, as has been suggested in archoves 001 to standarize the spelling in the article by Milliken with a footnote. If all agree it can be one of the things we can do. Goldenrowley 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
J, Nice harvestor research ..and source gathering. Well my feeling is its published so its not breaking the original research rule. I'd link to go back to having the link to hunter-gatherer and add the additional research right after. I think it would be very interesting to place 1-2 sentence quote in the article from one of these sources. I think the article on hunter-gatherer page is a good one, it says that it is not exclusive. I also read the women planted or kept fields of grass seeds, had a run in with the settlers over whose grass it was... Goldenrowley 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that the Costanoan languages were all just dialects of one 'Costanoan language'. While the different Costanoan languages were similar, they were in fact different languages. Chocheño, Mutsun, and Rumsen are the best-documented Costanoan languages, and it's clear they were quite distinct. Karkin, Santa Cruz and Soledad are much more poorly documented, but they look quite distinct as well. The only cluster of dialects one could posit are Chocheño and the dialects of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties, which might have been dialects of one language. The various articles of Catherine Callaghan in the International Journal of American Linguistics over the past 20 years are a good source for this. -Anon., Oct. 14 2006
Unless anyone disagrees, I will proceed to add Milliken spellings as alternative spellings for tribelets, and a parenthesis that spellings are given to the best of our ability (I can quote Milliken exactly on that and cite him) Goldenrowley 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
word as listed in articles | Milliken | Merriam | Mission spellings |
---|---|---|---|
Ohlone | Ojlon | Ahlone | Alonee, Ojlone, etc. |
I am not sure if I like a table better its certainly clearer but may be a full page or more... Goldenrowley 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, a really big migration wave was in 1795 (1 year), and it caused a big repurcussion that year... since I researched it, I'll try to get the exact citation tonight. Goldenrowley 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The intro does not make sense with today's revision, all of a sudden says that Costenos is English misspelling for Ohlone. I liked the old intro much better? Goldenrowley 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-Is the language called Costanoan or Ohlonean ? Or both. Goldenrowley 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-FYI, Lamchin page linked to this page has been marked needs "cleanup" for the past year... if anyone is so inclined to help it. Goldenrowley 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I flagged the Merriam Ohlonean sentence - page 40 of Teixeiria On the same page says Merriam made up the word Ohlonean for the language, it also says he had not training in Linguistics and seems to suggest it is a code name for "Costanoan/Ohlone". O think everyone else is using Costanoan.
....Guess what I got a Robot message tonight that the page is "longer than suggested" and suggesting that we break it down....would we care to move something to a subpage ? If so, what? I'd think move the Language discussions because its standard for language to have its own page and also you could use that neat language table idea. Goldenrowley 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote Lamchin and tagged it stub. It should be enough for now.
On village names, I'll wait until I re-read the entire article. Possibly Thurs. -- meatclerk 08:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
A quick read finds numerous errors. I can state plainly you are using much uncited material from the original article. While it looks attractive, it's in accurate. One of many examples is "these people had over 40 different tribal names". You might note the as you are adding village names, you are "well over 40". You might also look at Milliken pg. 228-229, a count there seems to be "well over 40"
I am repeating this to note you are quoting from the original article, again it was inaccurate. -- meatclerk 08:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've decide to create a general stub for all the Triblet and Villages, south of San Mateo to south the county line (San Franquito Creek). I'm not really happy with what I did for Lamchin. As such, today I'll make some time to do something. Likely about 4-6 sentences, whatever I can get from Brown and Milliken.
Comments please. -- meatclerk 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Tribes and Villages according to Milliken unless noted*
Tribes according to Milliken [1] | Also known as... [2] | Original Location | Known subgroups | |
Achista | - | Santa Cruz Mountains, Present-day Boulder Creek and Riverside Grove | tentatively includes Acsaggis | |
Alson | - | low marshlands at sourthern end of San Francisco Bay | - | |
Altahmo, Altagmu | - | * see Ssalson | - | |
Aleitac | - | * see Ssalson | - |
Do you guys prefer villages the bullet list or in "more graphic designed" table ? Let me know, I am just tossing out some formatting ideas. Goldenrowley 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I note the History section has the needed material. I was just stating that the citations on some of that information is available. Seperately, I have material on pre-mission contact with the natives, but that will wait until I have it completed. We have enough irons in the fire. -- meatclerk 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I took this table out of Population, why use it "it is not supported by others"? However I am imagining using the table design (without the population column) in anothr way, namely as the start of a "template" or Index at the bottom of all Ohlone pages Goldenrowley 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
Note: Cartier does not agree with Cook's calculations in Book 2... not even close
Subgroups | Location | Est.Population |
Karkin | South edge of Carquinez Strait | 200 |
Chocheño | East side of San Francisco Bay | 2,000 |
Ramaytush | San Mateo and San Francisco Counties | 1,400 |
Tamyen | Southwest side San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley | 1,200 |
Awaswas | From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz Co. | 600 |
Mutsun | Pajaro River, San Benito River and San Felipe Creek | 2,700 |
Rumsen | Salinas, Lower Carmel and Sur Rivers | 800 |
Chalon | Upper Salinas drainage | 900 |
Note: These population counts by Cartier are not supported by other anthropologists (are not confirmed facts).
Is triblet a word?? (missing e, right?) Goldenrowley 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It occured to me that the map we have been using is incorrect. I note that many references say "Costanoan/Ohlone, a linguist group ...", but the term has wider meaning now. As such, here is a partial redefinition.
I say this because a few references used to have Coastal Miwok as Costanoan, but Milliken does not. Meaning that the linguistics reference has changed. However, the issue of the Mission Indians gets muddy now, because about 1810 Mission Dolores was sending their natives to Marin to recover from diseases. Likely, any surviving peninsula and east bay natives went there.
Now add to that the confusion of the 1840s. If any survived on the peninsula, of which evidence there is (Brown,1974 says 37 in 1822), and then the government calling calling them Costanoan until 1930s(Teixeira,1997 pg. 4), then their might be an issue. However, we could resolve this issue many ways. I.E. the latest Bureau of Entomology definition, or agree on a standard text, or make a reference to it in the article.. AnyHOW......
In any case, I would like to put this under the heading of "unresolved issues" and get back to it next month. The "history tab" says I have been at this since Oct 5, so I need to get back to the other articles. This means I need to finish everything started and put all new issues under the heading "unresolved issues". If you guys are good with that, then I will put this and several other issues in that file/subpage. Comments? -- meatclerk 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Truthfully, I did not get it. So, from Utian I followed the first external link. The language thing makes sense now. It looks like this:
Apparently, to confuse us, they are using tribe/tribelet names as language names. Maybe we should use this, on the main page; or language section at least.
On that, we should explain, there may be confusion: Some tribelets have been lumped into language groups, but they seem to share not political affiliation. In example, Karkin was a tribelet and a language group. Rumsen was also. Lumchin was a triblet in the sub-dialect Ramaytush.
All previous were of language group Penutian and subgroup Utian.
It's messy and uglier becuase the language is extincted.
On the stub, I changed and added a few things. 1) fake entry example for wikitionary.org 2) Split long sentence. 3) French and Russians brought diseases too, likely. But they really don't know. Most guess it was the soilders. 4) Hence, syphilis