This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "zeroeth" the common way to spell that in Ojibwe studies? Because I have always only seen "zeroth". Dictionary.com recognizes "zeroth" but not "zeroeth", and the former gets 1,700,000 Google hits compared to the latter's 36,200. I didn't want to change it, though, in case "zeroeth" was the more common spelling when referring to Ojibwe persons. 206.176.113.70 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
None of the information in the "Person" section is sourced.
The article needs to have some verifiable, reliable, third-party secondary sources (and maybe also some primary sources) to show that any group of professional linguists use the term "0th person" or "zeroth person" or "zeroeth person" or "zero'th person", however it is spelled.
It would also be helpful to have a reference showing that "0th person" is used in discussing any language other than Ojibwe.
The "person hierarchy" in the "Transitive" section also needs such verifiable sourcing.
It seems doubtful that "Null Person" would precede "Third Person Proximative" in such a hierarchy.
If this is true, at least two primary-or-secondary sources, compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies about reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, should support this analysis of Ojibwe's person-hierarchy.
And, just like "0th person", the article needs reliable sourcing for Ojibwe's "Null Person"; and this would be more credible if some group of professional linguists also used the term "Null Person" when speaking of some other languages as well.
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have received the following personal email from Professor Valentine:
Hi Eldin. I don't have time to read the Wikipedia article now. I don't recall ever writing anything in Wikipedia related to Ojibwe, oh, maybe a sentence or two, but nothing substantial. I think your puzzles are making reference to a common convention in Ojibwe/Algonquian studies, to code person/gender in this way 3 third person animate 0 third person inanimate But I don't know anyone who calls 0 "zeroth" person, or 0th person. It's just a code used in paradigm lists for reasons of economy, though you could certainly say that animate generally outranks inanimate (but I'm not sure what zero would mean in such a scheme, given what 1, 2, 3 mean). There are also "unspecified actor forms" which are animate intransitive and transitive inanimate forms that don't have explicit subjects. It's rather like German hier wird getanzt 'there is dancing here.' Such forms are often called impersonal passives. It's common in Ojibwe paradigm coding to call these X forms, and to call the implied actor/agent of a passive X as well. I think that's what's causing the other odd usage... so, for example, s/he is seen is coded as X>3s, I am seen as X>1s, etc. The direct suffix in transitive verbs is -aa; the inverse is -ig. In the passive, you get -aa, so if you think of passive as X > 3, e.g., waabamaa, 's/he is seen,' then you could argue that X is higher on the person hierarchy than 3, creating an order 2 1 X 3 (3') 0 (0'). (3' is animate obviative; 0' inanimate obviative). cheers, rand
So it looks like using 0s, 0p, 0's, 0'p for inanimate participants, singular and plural, proximative and obviative, is common practice when describing Algonquian languages (but possibly not other American languages?). Also, it looks like using X to denote an indefinite or unspecified or implicit agent, is common practice when describing Ojibwe paradigms (but possibly not other Algonquian paradigms?), at least those that are intransitive with an animate subject or transitive with an inanimate object -- at least, if I understand Dr. Valentine's remarks properly. He gives good reasons to believe the X fits in the "person hierarchy" as it is shown in the article, but doesn't state whether that's the common consensus among Americanists, or Algonquian specialists, or even Ojibwe specialists.
This encourages me to believe there exist at least a couple of published hardcopy secondary sources at least a year old that support what Prof. Valentine is saying. I also got responses from Laura Welcher and from Anna Siewierska. None of them recognized the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person" (however it might be spelled) as being used in linguistics. If it has any currency, it's in narrative, literature, game-design, etc.; "0th-person perspective" or "0th-person point-of-view" instead of, say, 1st-person or 3rd-person.
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link), which I just ordered yesterday (Friday Oct 30) and probably won't get until Tuesday (Nov 3). You also cited many other books I haven't even asked for, much less seen nor touched. That being the case; Do you think it's still necessary to have the "refimprove" and "citecheck" templates in
Transitives? In particular I think the "citecheck" can be removed. The material using the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person", and the term "null person", you have now edited out; that was the material the citation didn't support, and now we know that the cited reference is reliable. Don't we also know that the material still in the article which is supported by those sources, is indeed in line with the sources? That being so, "citecheck" doesn't need to be there anymore. Perhaps the "refimprove" template still needs to be there; but I've removed both the "citecheck" and the "refimprove", anticipating that you would agree. If you don't, go ahead and put them backe in; I won't argue. And I noticed you added a "citation needed" template to the "3’p — ... or animate fourth person proximate plural" entry in the "Animate gender (plural)" column of the table in
Person; I suppose you know what you're doing there, so I will not do anything about it until you explain and/or ask me to.--
Eldin raigmore (
talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible references for some facts about Ojibwe grammar.
American Indian Studies 301 Syllabus (Fall 2004)
SIL Referenced Books by J. Randolph Valentine
Anthropological Linguistics Article by J. Randolph Valentine
Books by J. Randolph Valentine
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ojibwe grammar. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "zeroeth" the common way to spell that in Ojibwe studies? Because I have always only seen "zeroth". Dictionary.com recognizes "zeroth" but not "zeroeth", and the former gets 1,700,000 Google hits compared to the latter's 36,200. I didn't want to change it, though, in case "zeroeth" was the more common spelling when referring to Ojibwe persons. 206.176.113.70 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
None of the information in the "Person" section is sourced.
The article needs to have some verifiable, reliable, third-party secondary sources (and maybe also some primary sources) to show that any group of professional linguists use the term "0th person" or "zeroth person" or "zeroeth person" or "zero'th person", however it is spelled.
It would also be helpful to have a reference showing that "0th person" is used in discussing any language other than Ojibwe.
The "person hierarchy" in the "Transitive" section also needs such verifiable sourcing.
It seems doubtful that "Null Person" would precede "Third Person Proximative" in such a hierarchy.
If this is true, at least two primary-or-secondary sources, compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies about reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, should support this analysis of Ojibwe's person-hierarchy.
And, just like "0th person", the article needs reliable sourcing for Ojibwe's "Null Person"; and this would be more credible if some group of professional linguists also used the term "Null Person" when speaking of some other languages as well.
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I have received the following personal email from Professor Valentine:
Hi Eldin. I don't have time to read the Wikipedia article now. I don't recall ever writing anything in Wikipedia related to Ojibwe, oh, maybe a sentence or two, but nothing substantial. I think your puzzles are making reference to a common convention in Ojibwe/Algonquian studies, to code person/gender in this way 3 third person animate 0 third person inanimate But I don't know anyone who calls 0 "zeroth" person, or 0th person. It's just a code used in paradigm lists for reasons of economy, though you could certainly say that animate generally outranks inanimate (but I'm not sure what zero would mean in such a scheme, given what 1, 2, 3 mean). There are also "unspecified actor forms" which are animate intransitive and transitive inanimate forms that don't have explicit subjects. It's rather like German hier wird getanzt 'there is dancing here.' Such forms are often called impersonal passives. It's common in Ojibwe paradigm coding to call these X forms, and to call the implied actor/agent of a passive X as well. I think that's what's causing the other odd usage... so, for example, s/he is seen is coded as X>3s, I am seen as X>1s, etc. The direct suffix in transitive verbs is -aa; the inverse is -ig. In the passive, you get -aa, so if you think of passive as X > 3, e.g., waabamaa, 's/he is seen,' then you could argue that X is higher on the person hierarchy than 3, creating an order 2 1 X 3 (3') 0 (0'). (3' is animate obviative; 0' inanimate obviative). cheers, rand
So it looks like using 0s, 0p, 0's, 0'p for inanimate participants, singular and plural, proximative and obviative, is common practice when describing Algonquian languages (but possibly not other American languages?). Also, it looks like using X to denote an indefinite or unspecified or implicit agent, is common practice when describing Ojibwe paradigms (but possibly not other Algonquian paradigms?), at least those that are intransitive with an animate subject or transitive with an inanimate object -- at least, if I understand Dr. Valentine's remarks properly. He gives good reasons to believe the X fits in the "person hierarchy" as it is shown in the article, but doesn't state whether that's the common consensus among Americanists, or Algonquian specialists, or even Ojibwe specialists.
This encourages me to believe there exist at least a couple of published hardcopy secondary sources at least a year old that support what Prof. Valentine is saying. I also got responses from Laura Welcher and from Anna Siewierska. None of them recognized the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person" (however it might be spelled) as being used in linguistics. If it has any currency, it's in narrative, literature, game-design, etc.; "0th-person perspective" or "0th-person point-of-view" instead of, say, 1st-person or 3rd-person.
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link), which I just ordered yesterday (Friday Oct 30) and probably won't get until Tuesday (Nov 3). You also cited many other books I haven't even asked for, much less seen nor touched. That being the case; Do you think it's still necessary to have the "refimprove" and "citecheck" templates in
Transitives? In particular I think the "citecheck" can be removed. The material using the terms "0th person" or "zeroth person", and the term "null person", you have now edited out; that was the material the citation didn't support, and now we know that the cited reference is reliable. Don't we also know that the material still in the article which is supported by those sources, is indeed in line with the sources? That being so, "citecheck" doesn't need to be there anymore. Perhaps the "refimprove" template still needs to be there; but I've removed both the "citecheck" and the "refimprove", anticipating that you would agree. If you don't, go ahead and put them backe in; I won't argue. And I noticed you added a "citation needed" template to the "3’p — ... or animate fourth person proximate plural" entry in the "Animate gender (plural)" column of the table in
Person; I suppose you know what you're doing there, so I will not do anything about it until you explain and/or ask me to.--
Eldin raigmore (
talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible references for some facts about Ojibwe grammar.
American Indian Studies 301 Syllabus (Fall 2004)
SIL Referenced Books by J. Randolph Valentine
Anthropological Linguistics Article by J. Randolph Valentine
Books by J. Randolph Valentine
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Eldin raigmore ( talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ojibwe grammar. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)