Talk:Ashéninka language

Reasons for proposal of merging article "Axininca language"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Axininca is the term used by David Payne in his 1981 grammar to refer to the Ashé-Ashá variety spoken by the Apurucayali River. The Spanish version of this grammar, published in 1982, calls the language "Asheninca del Apurucayali". The so called Axininca is included in this article with the code cpc, so there is no reason to have a different article just because of the different name in that grammar. I myself could do the merging and adapt the contents into this article.--CS20M (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons for undoing the addition of /ç/ in the consonants chart

@Fdom5997: I'm sorry to revert your edit, but Payne (1989) for Pichis does not mention /ç/. This is only mentioned in Payne (1981) for Apurucayali, so including it in the table for Pichis is confusing. I decided to show the table for Pichis because it is the most spoken variety of the Northern Ashé-Ashá group, and I explained below the slight differences from Apurucayali and Alto Perené. I did this previously to including a consonant table for Ucayali-Pajonal based on the recently appeared grammar A grammar of Ashéninka (Ucayali-Pajonal), by Toni Pedrós, so my idea was to have a table for Ucayali-Pajonal and another one for Northern Ashé-Ashá. CS20M (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sonorants in the consonant chart

@Fdom5997: Thank you for arranging better the table with the new sub-columns of aspirated and palatalized. However, I don't agree with the sonorants file. I reproduced the consonants chart as is shown in Pedrós' (2023) grammar. It can be improved as you did, by adding sub-columns for aspirates and palatalized, which is an explanatory addition, but the sonorants file changes what the source says. Moreover, sonorants is a group that encompasses different kinds of consonants, as approximants and taps/flaps. The IPA chart has files for taps/flaps and approximants, and I think that we should stick to this; at least when we take the chart from a source, as is the case with the Ucayali-Pajonal chart, we cannot change it. I look forward to your opinion. CS20M (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So the consonant chart on the page does not have to be exactly the same as it looks in the Pedrós (2023) source. Although I do see what you are saying about the "sonorants" row. That is not necessary when creating the chart. I think I'll just create a separate row for those sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is better to have separate rows for taps/flaps and approximants. Moreover, nasals are also sonorants, so a row for sonorants including taps/flaps and approximants but not nasals is confusing. I can agree that the chart does not need to look exactly as in the source, but I think that the distinction between taps/flaps and approximants should be shown, as it is in the source. Moreover, when you read the section on approximants of the source, you realize that they have special features in this language.

I see that you added a row with the name Rhotics. I think that Taps/flaps describes better the two phonemes in this row, but, well, they also enter the rhotic category, so it's ok for me this way.

However, now I see that you kept the term sonorants only for the approximants. As I said above, the sonorants category also includes nasals and liquids, so I'll just change the name sonorants for approximants. CS20M (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)