Talk:Algonquian languages

Untitled

New sections at bottom, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.250.168.169 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

potato and tomato

Elsewhere in WP there are contradicting entries for the origins of (e.g.)potato and tomato. Should be clarified (from Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.105.45 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the "potato" and "tomato" etymologies are wrong - these words are attested in Spanish well before any European reached an area with Algonquin speakers, who moreover did not as far as I know have tomatoes to begin with. I've deleted them. (from Arabic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.10.115 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate says both entered English through Spanish via Mexico, with the ultimate origin of tomato being from the Nahuatl and potato from the Taino...both of whom were located considerably south of the Yematasi Adawa, who traded with the Athabascan Atawa, who traded into Mexico. -- Nunh-huh 05:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC

...who didn't even have potatoes[www.genres.de/IGRREIHE/IGRREIHE/DDD/59.pdf], nor, probably, tomatoes[1]. This is part of Taino and Aztec heritage, not Algonquian. - Mustafaa 04:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Medicine culture

"The medicine culture has been taken from Medicine Givers known generally as Wanagi Cha (Spirit Speakers) and has been passed from generation to generation along familial lines. Forgetting most of the lore and leaving behind what the teller did not like. Consequently the "religious" aspects of the Algonquian people as well as most of the Native American nations within North America have been lost to all but a few Wanagi Cha. There are perhaps seven or eight Wanagi Wakan K'cha or Medicine Teachers (Spirit Counsellors) on the whole continent." - This sentence no doubt has a place somewhere, but it doesn't belong in an article on the Algonquin languages. More worryingly, I'm fairly sure "Wanagi Wakan K'cha" is a Lakota, and thus non-Algonquin, phrase - in which case it reaally doesn't belong here. I'll delete it and leave it in the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.10.115 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

"Teacha'Chi"

"Teacha'Chi" is wrong too! Or at least, it's not a Yurok term - Yurok for "Yurok person" is 'oohl, for "speak Yurok" is saa'agoh. Whoever added the medicine/native names stuff didn't know what they were talking about. I'll delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.10.115 (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2004 (UTC)

Noticed other references to Teacha'chi and Arapaho/Arapatasi trade group. I believe that they were a trade partner within the Athabascan trade confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam O L Huard (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 July 2004 (UTC)

The terms Teachachi & Epacawani dont appear to be terms commonly used to name/describe any language or ethnic group in the Americas, as far as I can tell. The author seems to be mistaken. Yes, supplying sources would be most helpful. - Ish ishwar 08:14, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Trade groups

"There were three major trade groups within North America:

1. Yematasi Odawa
2. Epacawani Odawa
3. Teacha'Chi Odawa"

I strongly suspect that's false - the Wiyot and Yurok were single, rather small tribes, not trade groups - but I'm not 100% sure. Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.10.115 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Concerning etymology of Wiyot (a.k.a. Wishosk) and Yurok (a.k.a. Weitspekan).

This below is from Campbell (1997):

"Wiyot is from wíyat, the native name for the Eel River delta, which also referred to one of the three principal groups of Wiyots (Elsasser 1978:162).

"Yurok is from Karuk yúruk meaning literally 'downriver'. The Yurok traditional name for themselves is Puliklah (Hinton 1994:157), from pulik 'downstream' + -la 'people of', thus equivalent in meaning to the Karuk name by which they came to be known in English (Victor Golla, personal communication)." (Campbell 1997:401, notes #131 & 132)

"The connection of Wiyot and Yurok in northern California (which together were formerly called Ritwan, after Dixon and Kroeber's [1913] grouping of the two as one of their more remote Californian stocks) with Algonquian was first proposed by Sapir (1913) and was quite controversial at that time (see Michelson 1914, 1915; Sapir 1915a, 1915b; see also Chapter 2), but the relationship has subsequently been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all (see Haas 1958; Teeter 1964a; Goddard 1975, 1979, 1990). Before 1850 the Yurok lived on the lower Klamath River. The Wiyot (earlier called Wishosk) lived in the Humboldt Bay area, in the redwood belt; the last fully fluent speaker died in 1962 (Teeter 1964b). Many scholars have commented that although Wiyot and Yurok are neighbors in northern California, they seem not to have a closer relationship with each other than either has with Algonquian...." (Campbell 1997:152).

I provide everyone with a biblio:

• Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dixon, Roland; & Kroeber, Alfred L. (1913). New linguistic families in California. American Anthropologist, 5, 1-26.
• Elsasser, Albert B. (1978). Wiyot. In R. F. Heizer (Ed.), California (pp. 153-163). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8) (W. C. Sturtevant (Ed.)). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
• Goddard, Ives. (1975). Algonquian, Wiyot, and Yurok: Proving a distant genetic relationship. In M. D. Kinkade, K. L. Hale, & O. Werner (Eds.), Linguistics and anthropology in honor of C. F. Voegelin (pp. 249-262). Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
• Goddard, Ives. (1979). Comparative Algonquian. In L. Campbell & M. Mithun (Eds.), The languages of native America: Historical and comparative assessment (pp. 70-132). Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Goddard, Ives. (1990). Algonquian linguistic change and reconstruction. In P. Baldi (Ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology (pp. 99-114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Haas, Mary R. (1958). Algonkian-Ritwan: The end of a controversy. International Journal of American Linguistics, 24, 159-173.
• Hinton, Susanne F. (1994). Flutes of fire: Essays on Californian Indian languages. Berkeley: Heyday Books.
• Michelson, Truman. 1914. Two alleged Algonquian languages of California. American Anthropologist, 16, 361-367.
• Michelson, Truman. 1915. Rejoinder (to Edward Sapir). American Anthropologist, 17, 4-8.
• Sapir, Edward. 1913. Wiyot and Yurok, Algonkin languages of California. American Anthropologist, 15, 617-646.
• Sapir, Edward. (1915)a. Algonkin languages of California: A reply. American Anthropologist, 17, 188-194.
• Sapir, Edward. (1915)b. Epilogue. American Anthropologist, 17, 198.
• Teeter, Karl V. (1964)a. Algonquian languages and genetic relationship. In Proceedings of the ninth international congress of linguists (pp. 1026-1033). The Hague: Mouton.
• Teeter, Karl V. (1964)b. The Wiyot language. University of California publications in linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cheers! - Ish ishwar 02:34, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Spiritual practices

An anon user copied this entire article into Algonquin and copied that entire article here. I've reverted both duplications. In the course of doing so, however, I noticed that the section on Algonquian spirituality is here, although it relates to the people generally, not just the language. I'm moving that paragraph to Algonquin. JamesMLane 02:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article content review.

As an elder of the Algonquin counsel and Baying Wolf Clan, I have been asked by Cam Huard (a Wanaghi Cha) of the same clan , in Calgary Alberta to review this article as well as the Algonquin page. As Algonquin, Algonquian, Algonkin, Algomiquan, .... are all interchangable I don't know why you have to distinguish between them. The people of the Algic Nations do not distinguish between language, culture, history, community, tribe, clan, or society; these are European influences for which we want nothing to do with. We are all aniishnabe or the first nations. I hope that after I finish my review and present it to my lodge, society and tribal counsel, then present what we wish to be reflected here that you add to but not diminish our findings. If you wish to contact me my email address is

mailto://hanatanu@netscape.com

With deepest respect,

Elmer Weaselskin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmer Weaselskin (talk • contribs) 03:48, 12 August 2004 (UTC)

In response to this kind offer to provide information from the most knowledgeable sources, I have sent Elmer Weaselskin this email:

Dear Mr. Weaselskin,

Thank you for your message on the Wikipedia about the Algonquin and Algonquian articles. The information you refer to would be very valuable. I look forward to seeing it. At Wikipedia, however, there is no equivalent of a tribal counsel, so there is no one person who can assure you that the article will respect your wish that your findings be reflected. There are thousands of people involved. Any one of them can make a change to an article. (Any one of the others can then change it back, of course.) The only thing you can do is to submit the information and see what happens.

If you encounter any difficulty in incorporating the information in the article, there are many people at Wikipedia who will be glad to help you master the editing techniques. Feel free to send me an email if you have any questions.

With regard to having two articles, Algonquin and Algonquian, it is a common practice on Wikipedia to have one article on a people and another on their language. For example, there are articles on “Japanese people” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people) and “Japanese language” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language). It appears to me that someone tried to follow this pattern and thought that “Algonquin” referred to the people and “Algonquian” to their language. Perhaps the latter article should be renamed “Algonquin (language)”. The advantage of having separate articles is that the reader can more easily find a specific point of interest.

Thank you for willingness to take the time to help us improve these articles.

I hope people don't think I was being too negative at the beginning of the message, but I thought it was only fair to warn him in advance that the Wikipedia process can be disorderly at times. JamesMLane 04:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elmers' actual email address is mailto:hanatanu@netscape.net I have tried to contact him via the .com and received a mailer daemon until I went to netscape to see how their email/site was configured. He has replied after a few attempts on my part to get it right. If he doesn't reply let me know and I can get a message to him here at the library. Kalumnu 20H12m Thu 12 Aug 2004 (CNSC)

Two points for Kalumnu

• The Aleut and Athapaskan languages are in no way Algic or Algonquian. The last time this claim was made, [2] Teachachi and Epacawani were supposed to have been Wiyot or Yurok; why the sudden change? And where do these two names come from? They certainly aren't Wiyot or Yurok words.
• Both times, the claim was added that "There were three major trade groups within North America: 1.Yematasi Odawa, 2.Epacawani Odawa, 3.Teacha'Chi Odawa." Can you back this claim up with sources? I haven't heard of any such suggestion. - Mustafaa 23:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Mustafaa 23:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and about "Algonquin" vs. "Algonquian": "Algonquin" is a single language/tribe, and is a member of the much larger "Algonquian" family, which was named after it, and ranges from Mikmaq in Canada to Arapaho. Perhaps it shouldn't have been named after Algonquin (just as Semitic shouldn't have been named after Shem), but the usage is well-established now, for better or worse. - Mustafaa 23:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The family is named for Algonquin (of the Ottawa River valley), the language of this family which the French studied intensively in their early contacts with native peoples. They recognized the closeness to Algonquin of other languages of the family with which they gained familiarity. The spelling Algonquian reflects this origin; some scholars have preferred Algonkian as the English spelling (both forms have the same pronunciation), but historical precedent is on the side of Algonquian. (Campbell 1997:401, n. 133)

"The name Algonquin is said to be from Maliseet elakómkwik 'they are our relatives (or allies)' (Day and Trigger 1978:792)." (Campbell 1997:401, n. 136)

Compare with the OED etymology:

Algonquin < French Algonquin < maybe contracted from French Algoumequin (17 century) < perhaps near Micmac algoomeaking or algoomaking 'at the place of spearing fish and eels'. (OED)

Bibilo:

• Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Day, Gordon M.; & Trigger, Bruce G. (1978). Algonquin. In B. G. Trigger (Ed.), Northeast (pp. 792-797). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 15) (W. C. Sturtevant (Ed.)). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
• Simpson, J. A.; & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Online version).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ish ishwar (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 February 2005 (UTC)

Placenames and their meanings

It would be interesting to list all the Algonquian name and their meanings. A paragraph listed some of them already, but a list with meanings alongside would be much better. Kowloonese 08:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This would be interesting, especially for placenames that are not obviously or widely known to be of Algonquian (or Indian in general) origin. For example, just yesterday I realized and quickly confirmed that the city of Muncie, Indiana, comes from the Munsee Lenape. The giveaway clue is that Muncie is in the Delaware County. It may be trickier to give the meanings of placenames. Quite often, I think, there is an official story about what a placename means in its origin Indian language, but such stories are often wrong or questionable. And hey, this is my first ever edit in Wikipedia!

Pfly 18:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to provide etymology for all the things with Cree and Ojibwe names in Wikipedia by putting the information in the article. By looking at the What links here for Cree and Ojibwe, you can find most of them. But, I haven't studied any of the other Algonquian languages and I don't have text resources for them. But if you've got a list for those two languages, I can help. --Diderot 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious vocabulary

This voc was processed by anon who put in many nonsense under vfd now. the vocab of orig contributor estored to article (overlaps with the below). Mikkalai 07:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

===English words of Algonquian origin===

• chicago (chee-kaw-goh) skunk cabbage
• pecan ("paykan" - "nut" )
• pone (as in corn-pone) from Powhatan appoans "bread"
• raccoon (arahhkun) scratches with its hands
• skunk (shekãkwa) spray of smelly water
• squash (vegetable) (askootaskwash) fruit of health/life
• succotash (msikwatash) food mixed together
• tamarack, a species of larch and its wood
• tomahawk (tomah'hauk) sharp biting stick
• wampum (wapapyaki) trade good

===Algonquian names for animals===

• Adik - Caribou/Reindeer
• Adjidamo - Squirrel
• Amikwa - Beaver
• Esiban - Raccoon
• Cangweci - Mink
• Cigosi - Weasel
• Mahigan - Wolf
• Mahto - Brown Bear, Grizzly, or Kodiak
• Makwa - Bear
• Moz - Moose
• Nigig - Otter
• Pijiw - Lynx
• Winack - Marmot
• Wuchak - Groundhog
• Wawackeci - Deer
• Wadjack - Muskrat
• Wabicese - Marten
• Wapiti - Elk

– Mikkalai 07:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the animal names since I can't confirm them. The English words list is interesting and the ones I recognise I can verify. We can reasonably identify English words that derive from some Algonquian language. There is no such thing as a single "Algonquian" language, so regardless of their origin, the animal names are inappropriate here. If they come from one or more specific languages, they should go on those pages. Diderot 11:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least for the "Algonquian names for animals", many are Algonquin written without the accent marks, such as:

* Wawackeci - Deer <= in Algonquin, Wâwâckêci

The problem may be that Algonquian and Algonquin are being confused. If you don't mind, I'm moving the animal list to the Algonquin language page, less a few of the non-Algonquin names. CJLippert 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted "English words of Algonquian origin", I understand why they were removed. For example, "Chicago" comes from the Potawatomi Zhgagozh (Stink-grass, i.e. Wild Onion, c.f. Ojibwe Zhigaagwanzh) and "Wampum" from Narragansett or other related New England Algonquian language meaning "White-String [of beads]", opposed to the "Suki", the "Black" Wampum, which was really bluish purple. CJLippert 13:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

family tree list & dialects?

hi. i am the one who cluttered the article with all of the dialect names. what do you think about this? it is a rather long list, perhaps a bit scary? should we prune the tree? i like knowing all of dialect names since it is always usually hard to differentiate between dialects and languages and the traditional terminology often has multiple names that sometimes subsume smaller groups. any thoughts/suggestions? your thoughts are appreciated greatly since i am thinking about what to do with other language families. thank you — ishwar  (SPEAK) 20:34, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Bad logic

The main article contradicts itself. The phrase "Only Eastern Algonquian..." contradicts the rest of the article. All three are linguistically related, according to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.59.189 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Read more closely, it says that "only Eastern Algonquian is a true genetic SUBGROUP", clearly implying subgroup of the larger genetic group "Algonquian". "Plains" and "Central" are convenient geographical groupings of Algonquian languages, but are not genetic units within the larger genetic grouping "Algonquian". (Taivo (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

In any geographical classification, the number of sub-groups can be chosen freely. Two could just as well be replaced by two million sub-groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So? Algonquian is NOT a geographical classification, it is a genetic classification. But instead of just listing the first level as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Eastern Algonquian, we make it convenient and list Central, Plains, Eastern with the note that Central and Plains are geographical groupings and not genetic. What is your point? Do you even have a point? (Taivo (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

In a genuine group of languages, sub-groups are discovered first, being more obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.249.171 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If you knew anything at all about linguistics and the history of historical linguistics you would know that this is patently false. Indo-European was discovered long before any subgrouping attempts were successful. And, it is not always the case that there ARE subgroups. In the case of Algonquian, there are no genetic subgroups other than Eastern. Please, your ignorance and continued unsigned, cowardly sniping are getting old. (Taivo (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Algonquian and Afro-Asiatic

I've removed the paragraph on the connection of Algonquian and Afro-Asiatic from the article:

Fuhler has provided evidence that links Proto-Algonquian to the Afro-Asiatic language family. The evidence Fuhler provides surpasses Johanna Nichols's requirements for individual-identifying systems. Whether the evidence establishes a genetic relationship is unclear, in part because of the controversy surrounding pre-Columbian diffusion to the Americas.

Since it was cited, I'm going to explain my reasoning below:

1. This claim definitely does not represent the consensus view of scholars of Algonquian and American Indian languages in general.
2. Since the article making this claim was only published in 2007, and in a journal that most Algonquianists are probably not familiar with, one can't expect any rebuttals or reviews yet. Wikipedia's policy states (WP:PRIMARY): "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Therefore, since the only source for this claim is the original claim itself (the primary source), and no other researchers or linguists have, to my knowledge, written about it, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (Compare this with another recent claim about the connection of an American Indian language family with one from the Old World, Dene-Yeniseian, where the claim was positively reviewed by many specialists in the field).
3. The article in which the claim is made (The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers), to my mind, is not a truly reputable source. It is a journal founded by Barry Fell, whose conclusions on language have been vigorously opposed and refuted by essentially all specialists (see here for a discussion of one of Fell's claims relating to Indian languages, also published by ESOP). It is a journal covering a wide range of topics ("the interpretation of ancient or preserved scripts, symbols, and languages, as well as historical and traditional sources relating to ancient connections between cultures, religions, and philosophies/mythologies"), and is not the main journal for publications related to Algonquian matters. If Fuhler had truly demonstrated this supposed relationship, he should have read it at one of the annual Algonquianist Conferences, or published it in IJAL (the International Journal of American Linguistics), the preeminent journal of articles relating to indigenous languages of North America. That he did not, but instead published it in an obscure journal founded by a crank and given to publishing controversial and poorly-researched claims, a journal that most Algonquianists would be unfamiliar with, he says to me that he has not, in fact, amassed sufficient proof for this relationship. Another Wikipedia policy quote seems reasonable here (WP:SOURCES and WP:REDFLAG): "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them....Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."

--Miskwito (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur since this is extreme fringe and the reliability of anything sponsored by Fell is extremely questionable. I'm not sure how I missed this addition to this article, but I'm glad you caught it, Miskwito. (Taivo (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Category:Algic languages vs. Category:Algonquian languages

Category:Algonquian languages is a category within Category:Algic languages. —Robert Greer (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Algonquin"

Perhaps a person competent in Algonquian can explain this conundrum to me. Why do all Wikipedia articles give only the elakómkwik etymology for Algonquin without even mentioning the alternative explanation, quoted above, from algoom(e)aking (apparently a placename)? Is the source (OED) not considered reliable enough? The list of attested variants found at List of Algonquin ethnonyms#Algonquin(s) would seem to justify mentioning the second explanation as the variants agree more closely with algoom(e)aking – considering the distortion to be expected when a Native American name is conveyed through the French and subsequently English language. I also realise that the spelling algoom(e)aking is itself patently influenced by English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the elakómkwik etymology is merely quoted with the hedge "is said to be from" in Campbell. Therefore, portraying the etymology as definite fact in Wikipedia would seem to be a clear misrepresentation of the source and a violation of NPOV. I wonder what the source cited by Campbell itself says. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The source Campbell cites is the article on the Algonquin from the Handbook of North American Indians, but the source that article cites (which luckily I have!) is Gordon Day's 1972 article from the International Journal of American Linguistics, "The Name Algonquin" (IJAL 38(4):226-228). Apparently the etymology deriving the name from a putative Mikmaq term algoom(e)aking ("at the place of spearing fish and eels") etymology comes from J. N. B. Hewitt in the Handbook of American Indians (NB: not the same as the Handbook of North American Indians, which is late 1970s-present; the first vol. of the Handbook of American Indians--where this etymology appeared--is from like 1905). Day refers to Hewitt as "the Bureau [of American Ethnology]'s Iroquoianist", and says of the proposed etymology: "Hewitt's form appears to end in a locative [i.e., -ing], thus agreeing with his translation, but a locative is not appropriate after a verb root, and if -ing is a locative, it is not a Micmac type locative. It is not clear where the -k- comes from. It may be observed, moreover, that although a people may derive its name from the name of a place, a place-name is not the name of a people." He goes on to mention a number of other possible etymologies--some apparently his own guesses as to potential sources from each of the languages spoken by Indians Champlain was with when he first recorded the name, rather than theories which had previously appeared in the literature. Champlain first recorded the name at Tadoussac in 1603, so if that's where he first heard the word, Day says, it would have come from the Algonquins, Montagnais, or an "Etchemin" (unfortunately, the French applied the name "Etchemin" to a bunch of several different Algonquian-speaking groups, though Day here identifies them mainly with the Maliseet and Abenaki). Because Algonquin and Montagnais lacked the phoneme /l/ at the time, but Maliseet did have it, Day guesses the word came from Maliseet and suggests the word quoted in the WP article as the "most probable origin of the name" (but he never claims he's proven anything).

Personally, I'm not particularly convinced by his evidence, but obviously that's unimportant for Wikipedian purposes; in any event his suggestion seems to be the one most frequently cited in recent literature. Besides Campbell and the HNAI, there's Bill Bright's Native American Placenames of the United States (which the Online Etymology Dictionary cites alongside the algoomeaking theory). The Random House Dictionary (and thus dictionary.com), whose Algonquian-related etymologies were written by Ives Goddard, simply says "presumably < an Algonquian language". At least some other dictionaries just mention the algoomeaking theory as the OED does; from personal experience I'll warn that dictionaries in general, but the OED in particular, tend to be quite bad when it comes to Indian etymologies. But of course that's irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. You're probably right that the alternate theory should be mentioned in the article, given its prominence in respectable and widely-consulted dictionaries, and given Day's presentation of his proposal as merely the most probable rather than one that has been proven --Miskwito (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your effort! I understand Day's reasons for preferring elakómkwik. I just noticed that the recorded variants do not fit particularly well, and algoom(e)aking seemed a lot closer, but if that's not a really attested form (and a dubious one for several reasons), its value is of course much more questionable. Personally, I'm fine with leaving it out, now that I understand the issue, but of course the OED is a very notable source and I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of its alternative explanation, either. My hunch, or at least my personal conclusion, is that both etymologies might well be wrong and of course we can never be sure about a question such as this, the drawing up of etymologies for names being a speculative business (at least when we have no good idea what they originally meant); the true origin of Algonquin seems to be lost in the mists of time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to simply label the elakómkwik explanation as a proposal, rather than as fact. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds entirely unobjectionable to me --Miskwito (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done (on all pages where this is mentioned). Is the new phrasing good, or can you think of a better one? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

relationship between Algonquian and Iroquoian languages

Can anyone shed any light on the relationship between Algonquian and Iroquoian languages? 207.194.70.25 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

They are unrelated language families. --Taivo (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There must be some relationship, however far back we would have to go to find it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Content of deleted Category:Algonquian loanwords

As of 3/3/2013 "Category:Algonquian loanwords" contained the following articles. The category is being deleted per this discussion:

• Abegweit
• Algoma (placename)
• Amik
• Aroostook War
• Arthabaska
• Athabasca
• Baykok
• Bungi Creole
• Caribou
• Catawissa, Pennsylvania
• Caucus
• Chappaquiddick Island
• Chincoteague, Virginia
• Chipmunk
• Cisco (fish)
• Ekota, Edmonton
• Endiang, Alberta
• Etchemin language
• Gitche Manitou
• Hominy
• Siberian Husky
• Chief Illiniwek
• Kakwa
• Kananaskis River
• Katonah
• Ke-mo sah-bee
• Keewatin
• Kinkajou
• Kinnickinnick
• Kiskatinaw
• Kittanning Expedition
• Lake Michigan
• Lycoming Creek
• Manitou
• Meramec (series)
• Merrimac coup
• Meskanaw, Saskatchewan
• Miami-Illinois language
• Midewiwin
• Mi'kmaq language
• Treaty of Mississinwas
• Moccasin
• Monadnock
• Moose
• Moosomin
• Mugwump
• Muskeg
• Muskellunge
• Muskrat
• Muskwa
• List of Algonquian personal names
• Naskapi language
• Opossum
• Ottawa dialect
• Papoose
• Paskapoo Formation
• Passaic River
• Pecan
• Pembina
• Pemmican
• Persimmon
• Phalanger
• Piksi
• Pipsissewa
• Podunk
• Pone
• Pontiac
• Possum
• Potawatomi language
• Pow wow
• Puccoon
• Quahog
• Quiripi language
• Quonset hut
• Raccoon
• Roanoke Colony
• Romancoke, Maryland
• Sachem
• Sagamore (title)
• Samp
• Scuppernong
• Shaganappi
• Shawano Lake
• Shawmut
• Skunk
• Squash (plant)
• Squaw
• Succotash
• Susquehannock language
• Tamarack
• Tammany Hall
• Toboggan
• Totem
• Tullibee
• Tupelo
• Wabana Records
• Wabanaki
• Walam Olum
• Wampum
• Wamsutta Oil Refinery
• Wapiti
• Manchurian wapiti
• Wapstan
• Wendigo
• Weroance
• Wetaskiwin (disambiguation)
• Wickiup
• Wigwam
• Wikiup
• Winisk, Ontario
• Winnisook Club
• Woodchuck

DexDor (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Algonquian loanwords had useful content, so I've moved it to Talk:Algonquian languages/Loanwords. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Algonquian languages/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

mostly directory. This is largely a directory page for component sublanguages/groups, many of which are not yet listed here or in the languages/cultures below; has good discussion of the language group's history/technical matters; but again more lay content is, I think, advisable --Skookum1 (8 May 06) Above comments don't really apply anymore. But there's still a lot that can be done to improve the article: inline citations, more discussion of Algonquian grammatical features, more (and clearer) discussion of supgrouping issues, some discussion of the speakers of Algonquian languages, etc. --Miskwito (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Algonquian/Algonkian.

The true name is Algonkian. The name Algonquian is for Algonquin Park, but the people and language is Algonkian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.25.199 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Mislabeled or Wrong Map?

The map that shows the distribution of Algonquian languages actually shows Algic languages.The key point is in the little red section on the Pacific coast of northern California, which would indicates the lands of the Yurok and Wiyot - which are not, from my understanding, Algonquian languages per se, but languages sharing a common ancestor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapallon (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The Name "Delaware" Did Not Come From Algonquian

The article states that the name of the state of Delaware has an Algonquian etymology. However, this is untrue. The state of Delaware was named after the Delaware River. The Delaware River, in turn, was named for Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr (1577–1618) who was the ruling governor of the Colony of Virginia at the time Europeans first explored the river.

The confusion may come from the use of the name "Delaware" for the Lenape, a Native American people who inhabited an area of the basins of the Susquehanna River, Delaware River, and lower Hudson River in the northeastern United States at the time of European settlement, as well as for their language. The Lenape language is, in fact, an Algonquian language, so that may be the ultimate root of the confusion. - Tyenkrovy (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)