This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uto-Aztecan languages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Some of these links go to language pages and some of them go to pages on the peoples who spoke them. Should they all be directed to a language page at the expense of having more red links? Maybe following the language with the peoples who spoke them would be a good compromise. For example:
Ute-Southern Paiute language - Ute, Southern Paiute
What do you think? Toiyabe 23:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I really must object to the Tanoan family not being present in this chart. Tanoan peoples are most certainly Uto-Aztecan. The Kiowa for example have known many other Uto-Aztecan peoples as their cousins, visited them, and travelled as far as central Mexico where they were able to converse with the people there. A single rogue linguist trying to make fame for himself by denying long established realities does not make a good reason to toy at such historical revisionism as removing Tanoan from the Uto-Aztecan family in an encyclopedia. Xj 07:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Although the previous version said it was "based on the authoritative classification given in Lyle Campbells 'American Indian Languages'," in fact there were many discrepancies between Campbell's scheme and the one presented. I've tried to give a general consensus version based on Campbell, Goddard, and Mithun. If making changes in this, please cite your sources and give your reasons for rejecting the ones used here. RhymeNotStutter 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to both Campbell (1997) and Mithun (1999), Southern Tepehuan is extinct. If there's reason to prefer the testimony of the Ethnologue reference, though, I don't think we should mechanically follow the first two on this point. The same reasoning applies to the matter of classification. Where there are contradictions between the authorities, it isn't doing "Original Research" to decide on the most credible between them on any particular point. Nor is it standard encyclopedic practice to uncritically follow one authority throughout; quite the contrary. If you prefer, though, we could switch over to presenting one authority's classification scheme (but which one?), and then note the discrepancies with other treatments in footnotes or text discussions. (I'm not sure it's worth the effort to do that, though, rather than trying to present a concise general picture that encompasses the general view in the article.) RhymeNotStutter 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a need for greater consistency here. You say that critically choosing among the contradictory testimony of experts on specific points is prohibited as Original Research, yet that's exactly what you're doing in the case of southern Tepehuán. You say that we should uncritically reproduce one classification, yet you've again inserted elements into the classification that are supported by NEITHER Campbell NOR Ethnologues (nor other sources that I've seen, and you don't cite any). As to Campbell's distinction between Southern Paiute and Ute/Chemehuevi, I strongly suspect that this is mostly a typo. I think that all other authorities recognize that Chemehuevi is a dialect of Southern Paiute. Some may make a distinction between Southern Paiute and Ute, but if so they would group Chemehuevi with Southern Paiute, not Ute. As to Alliklik, see the discussion in the articles on Tataviam and Tataviam language. It may well be that "Alliklik" is better reserved as a term for a Chumashan language or dialect, but the equation of Alliklik with Tataviam is well established in the literature, and an encyclopedia should alert its readers to that fact. RhymeNotStutter 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Southern Paiute Ute, Chemehuevi Kawaiisu
Whether grouping Chemehuevi with Ute is a typo I don't know, but I know thats the way it is in the book and that I would want to see a good and referenced counter argument to it in order to change it. Laso if it is it is worth at least a note to say that we have assumed it to be a typo in Campbells classification. Why he distinguishes Ute and Paiute I don't know - even ethnologue who are notorious splitters don't distinguish them (The distinction goes back to Sapir though so maybe that's why he distinguishes). But again that's what he writes. (we could mention the conclusion of J.A. Jones article from Anthropological Quarterly 1954 here it is argued convincingly that "Ute-chemehuevi" is the best nomenclature for the linguistic group, and Ute/Souther Paiute as cultural distinctions)
Pima-Papago Pima Bajo Northern Tepehuan and Southern Tepehuan Tepecano
Okay, I think the best would be to follow Campbell's classification explicitly and completely, with footnotes added to document the points on which other recent experts disagree with him. I'll work on changing over to the straight Campbell system in the next couple of days, unless you want to do so. (Places where you've introduced changes contrary to Campbell include Sonoran as a major grouping of all non-Aztecan southern languages, distinguishing Southeastern and Southwestern Tepehuan languages, and moving Tepecano into a subdivision of Southern Tepehuan.) For reasonable consistency, I don't think dialects should be listed; almost all of the major languages have documented dialects, and listing them all would overwhelm the classification. Where Campbell lists more than one language on a line without putting them in parentheses or hyphenating (as in the case Northern and Southern Tepehuan; also Cahuilla and Cupeño, which are certainly considered separate languages; etc.), I don't think he's saying that these are dialects, only that they belong to a common unnamed subgroup. - RhymeNotStutter 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody separates Southern Paiute from Chemehuevi and Ute as dialects of a single language. Lyle Campbell has told me that this is a typo in his book. It makes absolutely no linguistic sense whatsoever to group Ute (on the eastern end) with Chemehuevi (on the western end) as opposed to Southern Paiute (in the middle). I'm going to fix the Numic section to be accurate. It is not "original research", but simply recognizing the UNANIMITY of opinion among Numicists on this point. This is absolutely noncontroversial in either Numic or Uto-Aztecan studies. ( Taivo ( talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Nice map, Maunus, thanks. I don't see Guarijío or Pima on it. Lavintzin 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll put in Guarijío (it wasn't on any on my source maps either for some reason) and Pima Bajo is in the northern map for some reason. Also the locations are slightly impressionistic since I don't have coordinates or anything I have just done it impressionistically from Campbells maps and some others. I hope they aren't too far off. Also it is a problem that some locations are precontact and some are current. I do think it is an OK additio for the time being but hopefully they can become more precise. Maunus 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that Brian Stubbs has in the past couple decades done some work on Uto-Aztecan and Semitic languages, and found something like a thousand correspondences, which manifest consistent sound shifts. I'm a little suspicious of the conclusions because he's a Mormon (and so has reason to find such a correspondence). The reasearch has been mentioned favorably by other linguists, but they're also diffusionists. I don't know if any mainstream linguists or anthropologists have resonded to this research. Does anyone know? Should this at least be mentioned in this article? CaliforniaKid 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think his 2011 book "Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary" should be mentioned. (This book is separate from his work on Semitic relationships.) Would it fit better in the text or just as one of the references? Hawryluka ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
i don't know who drew those maps, but i don't believe the yaqui were that far down into the state of sonora. if anything, they went as far north as the border with arizona today. was this drawn on someone's own recollection?
The original text reads:
"Although established as a family, the subgrouping of the Uto-Aztecan language family remains controversial at present. Only eight groupings are considered unproblematic by a wide consensus of linguists: the Numic, Takic, Tübatulabal, Hopi, Pimic, Taracahitic and Aztecan branches. The higher level relations between these as well as the further subdivision of the single branches remain controversial. The Sonoran branch (including Pimic, Taracahitic and Corachol) and Shoshonean branch (including Numic and Takic,) in particular, are not accepted by some scholars."
Please note that in the list following this statement, there are only seven language groups named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch206 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. map needs serious revision. The Numic area doesn't even reach the Great Salt Lake, but Shoshone extended into Wyoming and central Idaho and Northern Paiute extended into central Oregon. The U.S. map is a joke as it stands. ( Taivo ( talk) 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
That part of the map is so small that all the names cannot be listed for lack of space. Thus, Cupeno, Gabrieleno, Serrano, and a number of Piman languages in northern Mexico, are all missing labels on the map. If you would like to draw a smaller scale map of just southern California and northwestern Mexico so that all the languages can be represented, then knock yourself out. ( Taivo ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
I've reformatted the Northern Uto-Aztecan section according to consensus Uto-Aztecan scholarship (summarized in Campbell, Mithun, and Goddard--Goddard's map that includes revisions to his Handbook article) and added references (a grammar and dictionary for each language where available). Someone else can work with Southern Uto-Aztecan because my Spanish is poor to non-existent.( Taivo ( talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
Greenberg's "Amerind" as well as his "mass comparison" methodology are rejected by the vast majority of historical linguists. There really isn't any debate on this at all. You have two serious historical linguists here (Maunus and myself) who agree on this. There is a small number of historical linguists who do accept this methodology and Greenberg's results, but they are a very small number and are not very influential in the field. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
Actually, I like reference lists that are physically tied to the languages that they refer to. It makes it much easier to find references if one is looking for material on a single language or group of languages. ( Taivo ( talk) 19:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Campbell 1979, which is an actual publication, was included among works cited (formerly "References"), yet it was not cited in the text in the last version prior to the bunch of edits I've made in the last 24 hours. Therefore, I've deleted it. (I retitled "References" "Bibliography"). Now, Campbell 1997 is cited many times, and it's possible that some of these citations are typos. (Of course, it's also possible that yet other inline citations were meant to be "Campbell 1979" or that any inline citation to it was inadvertently omitted.) By Googling, I find evidence that Campbell 1979 may have been cited without inline citations in many articles by one editor in particular. Let's see if someone else can match the source, Campbell 1979 to any content in this article. By the way, both Campbell 1979 and 1997 are relevant to this article. Dale Chock ( talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Followup. Of course I have no objection to citing a source as further reading. Just make sure to put it under a "Further reading" heading! For it makes sense to have one bibliography section that is limited to publications that support claims in the body of the article. IF you philosophically disagree, then discuss it here. Don't just revert edits. Dale Chock ( talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Just now, I made a minor deletion in the article, then created a new section on the Talk page to discuss it. Immediately Taivo reverted my edit with a nonexplanation explanation, "No need to delete. No new section on Talk page". You can't do that, Taivo. Besides, the new section in the Talk page is still there. I explained my reason for the deletion. I invited editors to provide inline citations to support the inclusion of the deleted material. All Taivo did was revert me without contributing any discussion. WHY is there "no need"? All this is about is a bibliography entry — why can't you explain yourself? Dale Chock ( talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In the last two days, I was slow to realize what about the references was odd. What it is is this: the bulk of them are not sources of claims made in the article, but recommendations for further reading on particular languages. This is not a bad thing, but it is not usually how things are done at Wikipedia. If you want to study the grammar of language X mentioned in this article, what Wikipedia should do is hyperlink you to a separate article on language X, and in that article works on the grammar of language X should be cited. I grant that there is at least the possibility that there is some significant convenience in having a bibliography of grammars and linguistic researches in one place. Nevertheless, I am skeptical how much convenience it affords, and it's not how things are usually done. I am reminded of the motto that runs something like, "Wikipedia (or, 'a Wikipedia article') should not be a list of links". I am not going to scatter references in this category to the three dozen or so language articles, because of the workload. But I will create a subgroup of them in the bibliography. An alternative solution would be a table. Dale Chock ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
By rewriting half of this small article today, and by adding comments to the above section, "Campbell 1979", I've made some startling discoveries. The article had two contradictions (like claiming a unified Corachol-Aztecan branch here, denying it there), and at least as many redundancies. It says very little. In my edits of the last six or so hours, I hardly deleted any points made, I just consolidated. Now I find that several statements, including ones I haven't gotten around to changing, are not faithful to the sources. This article was a mess! Basically, it has been neglected for a long time.
Here are two examples of things that remain to be fixed. (1) The statement that "since about 1980", some scholars have debunked the Northern/Southern classification. The problem with that is not that it's inaccurate, but that it's foolishly pointless in light of the claim by Steele 1979: 453, that the Northern/Southern theory was only launched in 1975, by Jeffrey Heath in a manuscript. (2) Somebody wrote that they were basing Northern/Southern on three sources including Mithun 1999. But Mithun 1999: 539-540 — I'm looking at it as I write this — does no such thing; it sticks with the eight branches.
I see that in my vehement comments of today, I was more right than I imagined. I mean the hullabaloo that was raised at my grouping and/or moving citations, and now it turns out that the article was sparse and garbled, and several editors hadn't read the sources, perhaps over a period of years. Neither had I, until today — but then, I only started editing this article yesterday! Dale Chock ( talk) 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly, the article uses the term 'Taracahitic', which seems to be used by the majority of scholars (including Campbell), but there are two references to 'Taracahitan', an alternative term for the subfamily that I've seen occasionally, e.g. in works by Wick Miller and Jane Hill. The article should be consistent in what term it uses. (I've made note of the alternate term in the separate page on Taracahitic; I'm not sure if alternate names need to be listed anywhere on this page.) Unfortunately, in the two places where 'Taracahitan' is used, it is in context of citing another source, and the original source might have used 'Taracahitan', so I'm reluctant to change it. (I don't have easy access to those sources.) What should be done? I see two options: a) change it to 'Taracahitic' to match the rest of the article or b) acknowledge that the original source used 'Taracahitan' (if indeed it did) and give an explanation in parentheses, such as '(i.e. Taracahitic)'. AlbertBickford ( talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would it not be normal for an article about a proto-language to have a discussion of historical phonology? I came here to confirm / look into the rumour I have heard that initial *p becomes zero in Nahuatl nouns but is preserved in verbs, but I found nothing. Tibetologist ( talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made this table meant to substitute the section that lists the UA languages in order. It still needs to incorporate the links to the languages, the demographic information and the sources. I want to link the sources in {{harvcoltxt|}} format. I also want to choose different background colors to show the divisions more clearly. I will be working on this slowly but steadily, and all help will be appreciated - including tweaking the subgroupings of the table, and to the table formatting. Just try not to screw up the table (not easy).
Genealogical classification of Uto-Aztecan languages | ||||||
Family | Groups | Languages | Where spoken and approximate number of speakers | Works | ||
Uto-Aztecan languages | Northern Uto-Aztecan | Numic | Western Numic | Paviotso, Bannock, Northern Paiute | 700 speakers in California, Oregon, Idaho and Nevada | |
Mono | About 40 speakers in California | |||||
Central Numic | ||||||
Shoshoni, Goshiute | 1000 fluent speakers and 1000 learners in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Idaho | |||||
Comanche | 100 speakers in Oklahoma | |||||
Timbisha, Panamint | 20 speakers in California and Nevada | |||||
Southern Numic | Colorado River dialect chain: Ute, Southern Paiute, Chemehuevi | 920 speakers of all dialects, in Colorado, Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona | ||||
Kawaiisu | 5 speakers in California | |||||
Takic | Serran | Serrano, Kitanemuk(†) | No native speakers currently, but learners of Serrano in Southern California | |||
Cupan | Cahuilla, Cupeño | 35 speakers of Cahuilla, no native speakers of Cupeño | ||||
Luiseño-Juaneño | 5 speakers in Southern California | |||||
Tongva (Gabrielino-Fernandeño)(†) | (extinct since ca. 1900) Sta. Catalina Island, Los Angeles, Southern California. | |||||
Hopi | Hopi | 6,800 speakers in northeastern Arizona | Hopi Dictionary Project (1998) | |||
Tübatulabal | Tübatulabal | 5 speakers in Kern County, California | Voegelin (1935) Voegelin (1958) | |||
Southern Uto-Aztecan | Tepiman | |||||
Pimic | O'odham ( Pima-Papago) | 14,000 speakers in southern Arizona, US and northern Sonora, Mexico | ||||
Pima Bajo (O'ob No'ok) | 650 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico | |||||
Tepehuan | Northern Tepehuan | 6,200 speakers in Chihuahua, Mexico | ||||
Southern Tepehuan | 10,600 speakers in Southeastern Durango | |||||
Tepecano(†) | Extinct since 1972, spoken in Northern Jalisco | |||||
Taracahitic | Tarahumaran | |||||
Tarahumara (several varieties) | 45,500 speakers of all varieties, all spoken in Chihuahua | |||||
Upriver Guarijio, Downriver Guarijio | 2,840 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora | |||||
Tubar(†) | Spoken in Sinaloa and Sonora | |||||
Cahita | ||||||
Yaqui | 11,800 in Sonora and Arizona | |||||
Mayo | 33,000 in Sinaloa and Sonora | |||||
Opatan | Opata(†) | Exctinvt since approx. 1930. Spoken in Sonora. | ||||
Eudeve(†) | ||||||
Corachol | Cora | 13,600 speakers in northern Nayarit | ||||
Huichol | 17,800 speakers in Nayarit and Jalisco | |||||
Aztecan | Pochutec(†) | extinct since 1970s, spoken on the coast of Oaxaca | Boas (1917) | |||
Core Nahuan | Pipil | 20-40 speakers in El Salvador | Campbell (1985) | |||
Nahuatl | 1,5 million speakers in Central Mexico |
\[\[([^\]\|]+)\]\] → [[$1 language|$1]]
I have now included refs for all languages, I dont think it is necessary to include all of the sources below, but if some of them seem indispensable feel free to include those as well.
These refs all need to be formatted into the harvard template so that they can be cited in the table. This will take a while, unless someone has a smart way of doing it automatically. @ Kwamikagami: perhaps?
We still need to include 1. overview of reconstructions of phonology and differences between them. 2. overview of reconstruction of grammar. 3. subsections on the 8 major language groups showing the main phonological and grammatical changes from PUA to the individual branches. 4. Expand the section on homeland to include the arguments and evidence used to argue for southern vs. northern homelands respectively. 5. expand the section on classification to give a better overview of the history of classification and the arguments and counter arguments used in subgrouping. 5. A section on macrofamily hypotheses including Aztec-Tanoan and Amerind. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that Glottolog has a completely different classification, unlike any I've seen before, with reference to Jane H. Hill and Victor Golla (both 2011), hence apparently taken or synthesised from these sources:
Omomil and Jova are extinct and unclassified within Uto-Aztecan, so their placement is less of a problem (apart from the acceptance of the Northern/Southern branches, which we would ignore for a consensus classification), but Takic and Taracahitic are broken up in this scheme into Cupan and Serrano–Gabrieliño (or rather, Tübatulabal is integrated into Takic at the same level of the two primary branches) or Cáhita, Opata-Eudeve, Tarahumaran and Tubar respectively.
So, which groups are really fully accepted by all scholars?
(I must admit I'm a bit wary about Jane H. Hill as a ref because her homeland proposal is not widely accepted in the field either, but I'm not an expert and her reasons may appear sound and her classification better received in the mainstream.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Haugen's 2014 classification based on Hill 2011 and Merrill 2013 looks like this:
(Manaster Ramer 1992)
Haugen showed off his lexicostatistics graphs at LSA, but when asked about the Tubatulabal-Hopi "connection" he didn't link them either together or to "Takic" and he didn't mention "Californian" at all. As far as the chart here in Wikipedia goes, there is solid consensus for breaking Taracahitan up. The consensus for breaking Takic up is almost there, but not quite as firm as for breaking down Taracahitan. There's no real consensus for "Californian" at this time. And it seems that scholars either like "Northern Uto-Aztecan" or they like "Southern Uto-Aztecan", but not both. The most cautious approach would be to remove both nodes until some sort of consensus develops. -- Taivo ( talk) 02:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No discussion above about reducing Serran and Cupan, so I restored Luiseno and Tongva. If they don't belong there, they should be listed as branches of Uto-Aztecan. — kwami ( talk) 23:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If Shaul places PUA north of the Mojave Desert and thus in the Great Basin along the California–Nevada border, that is a very different region from the homeland portrayed as traditionally advanced in the article; much farther to the northwest. Taivo, could you add Shaul's view of the homeland to the article? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
An anon IP editor is claiming that just because one or two sources use a new name for the language family, that justifies changing the name of the family throughout the text. This anon IP editor is edit warring over their unjustified change. "Uto-Aztecan" is, and remains, the most commonly used name for this language family. Let's review the most recent publications on that mention "Uto-Aztecan" to see what scholars are actually using. The most prestigious journal for the languages of the Americas is International Journal of American Linguistics (IJAL). In the most recent issues the articles about Uto-Aztecan or Uto-Aztecan languages and the term they use for the family are the following:
That's the last 10 years of IJAL and not a single, solitary mention of "Uto-Nahuatl" anywhere, not even in the place where it might be given a cursory mention, in the first footnote. But just to be sure I also checked the last few years of Anthropological Linguistics (AL). AL covers the entire world so there is a lower rate of appearance for articles about Uto-Aztecan.
That's the last 5 years of AL and not a single, solitary mention of "Uto-Nahuatl" anywhere, not even in the first footnote. So there you have it, linguists in the most prestigious journal relating directly to the languages of Native America are not even acknowledging the existence of a form "Uto-Nahuatl". That's the end of the issue. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 03:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tubatulabal is not an extinct language and it is incorrectly marked on this page as extinct "(†)"
The (†) should be removed for Tubatulabal.
The Tubatulabal language is still spoken by the current tribal community and its status is classified as "reawakening" according to the Department of Linguistics at California State University, Long Beach in their 2017-2020 research. Source: https://web.csulb.edu/colleges/cla/projects/lingresearch/pahka%27anil/
It is also recognized as a language still spoken by the California Language Archive. Source: https://cla.berkeley.edu/languages/tubatulabal.html 2603:3006:A58:C100:F5C9:6966:780D:F89F ( talk) 22:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uto-Aztecan languages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Some of these links go to language pages and some of them go to pages on the peoples who spoke them. Should they all be directed to a language page at the expense of having more red links? Maybe following the language with the peoples who spoke them would be a good compromise. For example:
Ute-Southern Paiute language - Ute, Southern Paiute
What do you think? Toiyabe 23:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I really must object to the Tanoan family not being present in this chart. Tanoan peoples are most certainly Uto-Aztecan. The Kiowa for example have known many other Uto-Aztecan peoples as their cousins, visited them, and travelled as far as central Mexico where they were able to converse with the people there. A single rogue linguist trying to make fame for himself by denying long established realities does not make a good reason to toy at such historical revisionism as removing Tanoan from the Uto-Aztecan family in an encyclopedia. Xj 07:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Although the previous version said it was "based on the authoritative classification given in Lyle Campbells 'American Indian Languages'," in fact there were many discrepancies between Campbell's scheme and the one presented. I've tried to give a general consensus version based on Campbell, Goddard, and Mithun. If making changes in this, please cite your sources and give your reasons for rejecting the ones used here. RhymeNotStutter 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
According to both Campbell (1997) and Mithun (1999), Southern Tepehuan is extinct. If there's reason to prefer the testimony of the Ethnologue reference, though, I don't think we should mechanically follow the first two on this point. The same reasoning applies to the matter of classification. Where there are contradictions between the authorities, it isn't doing "Original Research" to decide on the most credible between them on any particular point. Nor is it standard encyclopedic practice to uncritically follow one authority throughout; quite the contrary. If you prefer, though, we could switch over to presenting one authority's classification scheme (but which one?), and then note the discrepancies with other treatments in footnotes or text discussions. (I'm not sure it's worth the effort to do that, though, rather than trying to present a concise general picture that encompasses the general view in the article.) RhymeNotStutter 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a need for greater consistency here. You say that critically choosing among the contradictory testimony of experts on specific points is prohibited as Original Research, yet that's exactly what you're doing in the case of southern Tepehuán. You say that we should uncritically reproduce one classification, yet you've again inserted elements into the classification that are supported by NEITHER Campbell NOR Ethnologues (nor other sources that I've seen, and you don't cite any). As to Campbell's distinction between Southern Paiute and Ute/Chemehuevi, I strongly suspect that this is mostly a typo. I think that all other authorities recognize that Chemehuevi is a dialect of Southern Paiute. Some may make a distinction between Southern Paiute and Ute, but if so they would group Chemehuevi with Southern Paiute, not Ute. As to Alliklik, see the discussion in the articles on Tataviam and Tataviam language. It may well be that "Alliklik" is better reserved as a term for a Chumashan language or dialect, but the equation of Alliklik with Tataviam is well established in the literature, and an encyclopedia should alert its readers to that fact. RhymeNotStutter 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Southern Paiute Ute, Chemehuevi Kawaiisu
Whether grouping Chemehuevi with Ute is a typo I don't know, but I know thats the way it is in the book and that I would want to see a good and referenced counter argument to it in order to change it. Laso if it is it is worth at least a note to say that we have assumed it to be a typo in Campbells classification. Why he distinguishes Ute and Paiute I don't know - even ethnologue who are notorious splitters don't distinguish them (The distinction goes back to Sapir though so maybe that's why he distinguishes). But again that's what he writes. (we could mention the conclusion of J.A. Jones article from Anthropological Quarterly 1954 here it is argued convincingly that "Ute-chemehuevi" is the best nomenclature for the linguistic group, and Ute/Souther Paiute as cultural distinctions)
Pima-Papago Pima Bajo Northern Tepehuan and Southern Tepehuan Tepecano
Okay, I think the best would be to follow Campbell's classification explicitly and completely, with footnotes added to document the points on which other recent experts disagree with him. I'll work on changing over to the straight Campbell system in the next couple of days, unless you want to do so. (Places where you've introduced changes contrary to Campbell include Sonoran as a major grouping of all non-Aztecan southern languages, distinguishing Southeastern and Southwestern Tepehuan languages, and moving Tepecano into a subdivision of Southern Tepehuan.) For reasonable consistency, I don't think dialects should be listed; almost all of the major languages have documented dialects, and listing them all would overwhelm the classification. Where Campbell lists more than one language on a line without putting them in parentheses or hyphenating (as in the case Northern and Southern Tepehuan; also Cahuilla and Cupeño, which are certainly considered separate languages; etc.), I don't think he's saying that these are dialects, only that they belong to a common unnamed subgroup. - RhymeNotStutter 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody separates Southern Paiute from Chemehuevi and Ute as dialects of a single language. Lyle Campbell has told me that this is a typo in his book. It makes absolutely no linguistic sense whatsoever to group Ute (on the eastern end) with Chemehuevi (on the western end) as opposed to Southern Paiute (in the middle). I'm going to fix the Numic section to be accurate. It is not "original research", but simply recognizing the UNANIMITY of opinion among Numicists on this point. This is absolutely noncontroversial in either Numic or Uto-Aztecan studies. ( Taivo ( talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Nice map, Maunus, thanks. I don't see Guarijío or Pima on it. Lavintzin 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll put in Guarijío (it wasn't on any on my source maps either for some reason) and Pima Bajo is in the northern map for some reason. Also the locations are slightly impressionistic since I don't have coordinates or anything I have just done it impressionistically from Campbells maps and some others. I hope they aren't too far off. Also it is a problem that some locations are precontact and some are current. I do think it is an OK additio for the time being but hopefully they can become more precise. Maunus 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that Brian Stubbs has in the past couple decades done some work on Uto-Aztecan and Semitic languages, and found something like a thousand correspondences, which manifest consistent sound shifts. I'm a little suspicious of the conclusions because he's a Mormon (and so has reason to find such a correspondence). The reasearch has been mentioned favorably by other linguists, but they're also diffusionists. I don't know if any mainstream linguists or anthropologists have resonded to this research. Does anyone know? Should this at least be mentioned in this article? CaliforniaKid 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think his 2011 book "Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary" should be mentioned. (This book is separate from his work on Semitic relationships.) Would it fit better in the text or just as one of the references? Hawryluka ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
i don't know who drew those maps, but i don't believe the yaqui were that far down into the state of sonora. if anything, they went as far north as the border with arizona today. was this drawn on someone's own recollection?
The original text reads:
"Although established as a family, the subgrouping of the Uto-Aztecan language family remains controversial at present. Only eight groupings are considered unproblematic by a wide consensus of linguists: the Numic, Takic, Tübatulabal, Hopi, Pimic, Taracahitic and Aztecan branches. The higher level relations between these as well as the further subdivision of the single branches remain controversial. The Sonoran branch (including Pimic, Taracahitic and Corachol) and Shoshonean branch (including Numic and Takic,) in particular, are not accepted by some scholars."
Please note that in the list following this statement, there are only seven language groups named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch206 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. map needs serious revision. The Numic area doesn't even reach the Great Salt Lake, but Shoshone extended into Wyoming and central Idaho and Northern Paiute extended into central Oregon. The U.S. map is a joke as it stands. ( Taivo ( talk) 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
That part of the map is so small that all the names cannot be listed for lack of space. Thus, Cupeno, Gabrieleno, Serrano, and a number of Piman languages in northern Mexico, are all missing labels on the map. If you would like to draw a smaller scale map of just southern California and northwestern Mexico so that all the languages can be represented, then knock yourself out. ( Taivo ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
I've reformatted the Northern Uto-Aztecan section according to consensus Uto-Aztecan scholarship (summarized in Campbell, Mithun, and Goddard--Goddard's map that includes revisions to his Handbook article) and added references (a grammar and dictionary for each language where available). Someone else can work with Southern Uto-Aztecan because my Spanish is poor to non-existent.( Taivo ( talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
Greenberg's "Amerind" as well as his "mass comparison" methodology are rejected by the vast majority of historical linguists. There really isn't any debate on this at all. You have two serious historical linguists here (Maunus and myself) who agree on this. There is a small number of historical linguists who do accept this methodology and Greenberg's results, but they are a very small number and are not very influential in the field. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
Actually, I like reference lists that are physically tied to the languages that they refer to. It makes it much easier to find references if one is looking for material on a single language or group of languages. ( Taivo ( talk) 19:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Campbell 1979, which is an actual publication, was included among works cited (formerly "References"), yet it was not cited in the text in the last version prior to the bunch of edits I've made in the last 24 hours. Therefore, I've deleted it. (I retitled "References" "Bibliography"). Now, Campbell 1997 is cited many times, and it's possible that some of these citations are typos. (Of course, it's also possible that yet other inline citations were meant to be "Campbell 1979" or that any inline citation to it was inadvertently omitted.) By Googling, I find evidence that Campbell 1979 may have been cited without inline citations in many articles by one editor in particular. Let's see if someone else can match the source, Campbell 1979 to any content in this article. By the way, both Campbell 1979 and 1997 are relevant to this article. Dale Chock ( talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Followup. Of course I have no objection to citing a source as further reading. Just make sure to put it under a "Further reading" heading! For it makes sense to have one bibliography section that is limited to publications that support claims in the body of the article. IF you philosophically disagree, then discuss it here. Don't just revert edits. Dale Chock ( talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Just now, I made a minor deletion in the article, then created a new section on the Talk page to discuss it. Immediately Taivo reverted my edit with a nonexplanation explanation, "No need to delete. No new section on Talk page". You can't do that, Taivo. Besides, the new section in the Talk page is still there. I explained my reason for the deletion. I invited editors to provide inline citations to support the inclusion of the deleted material. All Taivo did was revert me without contributing any discussion. WHY is there "no need"? All this is about is a bibliography entry — why can't you explain yourself? Dale Chock ( talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In the last two days, I was slow to realize what about the references was odd. What it is is this: the bulk of them are not sources of claims made in the article, but recommendations for further reading on particular languages. This is not a bad thing, but it is not usually how things are done at Wikipedia. If you want to study the grammar of language X mentioned in this article, what Wikipedia should do is hyperlink you to a separate article on language X, and in that article works on the grammar of language X should be cited. I grant that there is at least the possibility that there is some significant convenience in having a bibliography of grammars and linguistic researches in one place. Nevertheless, I am skeptical how much convenience it affords, and it's not how things are usually done. I am reminded of the motto that runs something like, "Wikipedia (or, 'a Wikipedia article') should not be a list of links". I am not going to scatter references in this category to the three dozen or so language articles, because of the workload. But I will create a subgroup of them in the bibliography. An alternative solution would be a table. Dale Chock ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
By rewriting half of this small article today, and by adding comments to the above section, "Campbell 1979", I've made some startling discoveries. The article had two contradictions (like claiming a unified Corachol-Aztecan branch here, denying it there), and at least as many redundancies. It says very little. In my edits of the last six or so hours, I hardly deleted any points made, I just consolidated. Now I find that several statements, including ones I haven't gotten around to changing, are not faithful to the sources. This article was a mess! Basically, it has been neglected for a long time.
Here are two examples of things that remain to be fixed. (1) The statement that "since about 1980", some scholars have debunked the Northern/Southern classification. The problem with that is not that it's inaccurate, but that it's foolishly pointless in light of the claim by Steele 1979: 453, that the Northern/Southern theory was only launched in 1975, by Jeffrey Heath in a manuscript. (2) Somebody wrote that they were basing Northern/Southern on three sources including Mithun 1999. But Mithun 1999: 539-540 — I'm looking at it as I write this — does no such thing; it sticks with the eight branches.
I see that in my vehement comments of today, I was more right than I imagined. I mean the hullabaloo that was raised at my grouping and/or moving citations, and now it turns out that the article was sparse and garbled, and several editors hadn't read the sources, perhaps over a period of years. Neither had I, until today — but then, I only started editing this article yesterday! Dale Chock ( talk) 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly, the article uses the term 'Taracahitic', which seems to be used by the majority of scholars (including Campbell), but there are two references to 'Taracahitan', an alternative term for the subfamily that I've seen occasionally, e.g. in works by Wick Miller and Jane Hill. The article should be consistent in what term it uses. (I've made note of the alternate term in the separate page on Taracahitic; I'm not sure if alternate names need to be listed anywhere on this page.) Unfortunately, in the two places where 'Taracahitan' is used, it is in context of citing another source, and the original source might have used 'Taracahitan', so I'm reluctant to change it. (I don't have easy access to those sources.) What should be done? I see two options: a) change it to 'Taracahitic' to match the rest of the article or b) acknowledge that the original source used 'Taracahitan' (if indeed it did) and give an explanation in parentheses, such as '(i.e. Taracahitic)'. AlbertBickford ( talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would it not be normal for an article about a proto-language to have a discussion of historical phonology? I came here to confirm / look into the rumour I have heard that initial *p becomes zero in Nahuatl nouns but is preserved in verbs, but I found nothing. Tibetologist ( talk) 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made this table meant to substitute the section that lists the UA languages in order. It still needs to incorporate the links to the languages, the demographic information and the sources. I want to link the sources in {{harvcoltxt|}} format. I also want to choose different background colors to show the divisions more clearly. I will be working on this slowly but steadily, and all help will be appreciated - including tweaking the subgroupings of the table, and to the table formatting. Just try not to screw up the table (not easy).
Genealogical classification of Uto-Aztecan languages | ||||||
Family | Groups | Languages | Where spoken and approximate number of speakers | Works | ||
Uto-Aztecan languages | Northern Uto-Aztecan | Numic | Western Numic | Paviotso, Bannock, Northern Paiute | 700 speakers in California, Oregon, Idaho and Nevada | |
Mono | About 40 speakers in California | |||||
Central Numic | ||||||
Shoshoni, Goshiute | 1000 fluent speakers and 1000 learners in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Idaho | |||||
Comanche | 100 speakers in Oklahoma | |||||
Timbisha, Panamint | 20 speakers in California and Nevada | |||||
Southern Numic | Colorado River dialect chain: Ute, Southern Paiute, Chemehuevi | 920 speakers of all dialects, in Colorado, Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona | ||||
Kawaiisu | 5 speakers in California | |||||
Takic | Serran | Serrano, Kitanemuk(†) | No native speakers currently, but learners of Serrano in Southern California | |||
Cupan | Cahuilla, Cupeño | 35 speakers of Cahuilla, no native speakers of Cupeño | ||||
Luiseño-Juaneño | 5 speakers in Southern California | |||||
Tongva (Gabrielino-Fernandeño)(†) | (extinct since ca. 1900) Sta. Catalina Island, Los Angeles, Southern California. | |||||
Hopi | Hopi | 6,800 speakers in northeastern Arizona | Hopi Dictionary Project (1998) | |||
Tübatulabal | Tübatulabal | 5 speakers in Kern County, California | Voegelin (1935) Voegelin (1958) | |||
Southern Uto-Aztecan | Tepiman | |||||
Pimic | O'odham ( Pima-Papago) | 14,000 speakers in southern Arizona, US and northern Sonora, Mexico | ||||
Pima Bajo (O'ob No'ok) | 650 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico | |||||
Tepehuan | Northern Tepehuan | 6,200 speakers in Chihuahua, Mexico | ||||
Southern Tepehuan | 10,600 speakers in Southeastern Durango | |||||
Tepecano(†) | Extinct since 1972, spoken in Northern Jalisco | |||||
Taracahitic | Tarahumaran | |||||
Tarahumara (several varieties) | 45,500 speakers of all varieties, all spoken in Chihuahua | |||||
Upriver Guarijio, Downriver Guarijio | 2,840 speakers in Chihuahua and Sonora | |||||
Tubar(†) | Spoken in Sinaloa and Sonora | |||||
Cahita | ||||||
Yaqui | 11,800 in Sonora and Arizona | |||||
Mayo | 33,000 in Sinaloa and Sonora | |||||
Opatan | Opata(†) | Exctinvt since approx. 1930. Spoken in Sonora. | ||||
Eudeve(†) | ||||||
Corachol | Cora | 13,600 speakers in northern Nayarit | ||||
Huichol | 17,800 speakers in Nayarit and Jalisco | |||||
Aztecan | Pochutec(†) | extinct since 1970s, spoken on the coast of Oaxaca | Boas (1917) | |||
Core Nahuan | Pipil | 20-40 speakers in El Salvador | Campbell (1985) | |||
Nahuatl | 1,5 million speakers in Central Mexico |
\[\[([^\]\|]+)\]\] → [[$1 language|$1]]
I have now included refs for all languages, I dont think it is necessary to include all of the sources below, but if some of them seem indispensable feel free to include those as well.
These refs all need to be formatted into the harvard template so that they can be cited in the table. This will take a while, unless someone has a smart way of doing it automatically. @ Kwamikagami: perhaps?
We still need to include 1. overview of reconstructions of phonology and differences between them. 2. overview of reconstruction of grammar. 3. subsections on the 8 major language groups showing the main phonological and grammatical changes from PUA to the individual branches. 4. Expand the section on homeland to include the arguments and evidence used to argue for southern vs. northern homelands respectively. 5. expand the section on classification to give a better overview of the history of classification and the arguments and counter arguments used in subgrouping. 5. A section on macrofamily hypotheses including Aztec-Tanoan and Amerind. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that Glottolog has a completely different classification, unlike any I've seen before, with reference to Jane H. Hill and Victor Golla (both 2011), hence apparently taken or synthesised from these sources:
Omomil and Jova are extinct and unclassified within Uto-Aztecan, so their placement is less of a problem (apart from the acceptance of the Northern/Southern branches, which we would ignore for a consensus classification), but Takic and Taracahitic are broken up in this scheme into Cupan and Serrano–Gabrieliño (or rather, Tübatulabal is integrated into Takic at the same level of the two primary branches) or Cáhita, Opata-Eudeve, Tarahumaran and Tubar respectively.
So, which groups are really fully accepted by all scholars?
(I must admit I'm a bit wary about Jane H. Hill as a ref because her homeland proposal is not widely accepted in the field either, but I'm not an expert and her reasons may appear sound and her classification better received in the mainstream.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Haugen's 2014 classification based on Hill 2011 and Merrill 2013 looks like this:
(Manaster Ramer 1992)
Haugen showed off his lexicostatistics graphs at LSA, but when asked about the Tubatulabal-Hopi "connection" he didn't link them either together or to "Takic" and he didn't mention "Californian" at all. As far as the chart here in Wikipedia goes, there is solid consensus for breaking Taracahitan up. The consensus for breaking Takic up is almost there, but not quite as firm as for breaking down Taracahitan. There's no real consensus for "Californian" at this time. And it seems that scholars either like "Northern Uto-Aztecan" or they like "Southern Uto-Aztecan", but not both. The most cautious approach would be to remove both nodes until some sort of consensus develops. -- Taivo ( talk) 02:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No discussion above about reducing Serran and Cupan, so I restored Luiseno and Tongva. If they don't belong there, they should be listed as branches of Uto-Aztecan. — kwami ( talk) 23:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If Shaul places PUA north of the Mojave Desert and thus in the Great Basin along the California–Nevada border, that is a very different region from the homeland portrayed as traditionally advanced in the article; much farther to the northwest. Taivo, could you add Shaul's view of the homeland to the article? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
An anon IP editor is claiming that just because one or two sources use a new name for the language family, that justifies changing the name of the family throughout the text. This anon IP editor is edit warring over their unjustified change. "Uto-Aztecan" is, and remains, the most commonly used name for this language family. Let's review the most recent publications on that mention "Uto-Aztecan" to see what scholars are actually using. The most prestigious journal for the languages of the Americas is International Journal of American Linguistics (IJAL). In the most recent issues the articles about Uto-Aztecan or Uto-Aztecan languages and the term they use for the family are the following:
That's the last 10 years of IJAL and not a single, solitary mention of "Uto-Nahuatl" anywhere, not even in the place where it might be given a cursory mention, in the first footnote. But just to be sure I also checked the last few years of Anthropological Linguistics (AL). AL covers the entire world so there is a lower rate of appearance for articles about Uto-Aztecan.
That's the last 5 years of AL and not a single, solitary mention of "Uto-Nahuatl" anywhere, not even in the first footnote. So there you have it, linguists in the most prestigious journal relating directly to the languages of Native America are not even acknowledging the existence of a form "Uto-Nahuatl". That's the end of the issue. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 03:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tubatulabal is not an extinct language and it is incorrectly marked on this page as extinct "(†)"
The (†) should be removed for Tubatulabal.
The Tubatulabal language is still spoken by the current tribal community and its status is classified as "reawakening" according to the Department of Linguistics at California State University, Long Beach in their 2017-2020 research. Source: https://web.csulb.edu/colleges/cla/projects/lingresearch/pahka%27anil/
It is also recognized as a language still spoken by the California Language Archive. Source: https://cla.berkeley.edu/languages/tubatulabal.html 2603:3006:A58:C100:F5C9:6966:780D:F89F ( talk) 22:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)