Wikipedia

Talk:Mayan languages/Language name Orthography, ALMG and Cordemex debate

< Talk:Mayan languages
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Madman2001 in topic Changing back Yukatek to Yucatec

Cordomex

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This resource really should be mentioned---there isn't much reference on the web about this dictionary—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.186.65 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006.

By all means, if you have the information, feel free to add something about it.--cjllw | TALK 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this would be an important resource to mention. I'll see if there's a good spot to enter this info (if I have time this x-mas break). Chunchucmil 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You did it, I attempted to reedit it to remove my original less-well-founded text, see what you think. --Homunq 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

ALMG

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Here in Guatemala the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala is considered the authority on Mayan languages and has updated the orthography. Even in Mexico they get some respect (in my experience in the Tzotzil area) and I expect that in Belize and Honduras too (given relative sizes of the populations involved and that there are no Mayan languages there that aren't also indigenous to Guatemala. I'd suggest it would be good to move all relevant pages to reflect the new orthography, keeping of course the old (Spanish) version redirects. (although I personally find the doubled vowels silly, but that's probably because the two languages I've touched don't have them) Here's my revision of the list:

I think the new spellings should be mentioned, but generally as far as I have udnerstood it is Wikipedia policy to use American English spellings, not native spellings, but the spelling that allow english speakers to most easily find a topic. Native names and spellings are generally provided in the article lead but not as the name of the article, e.g. the article is French language not "langue francaise"Maunus 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Granted. But the American English basically follows the Spanish (or else why the gendered endings and the accent in Quiché, basically only the capitalization and the few non-gendered ones like Yucatec are particularly English). And the Spanish is clearly changing. Moreover, the forms currently used on this page are a mishmash, all the K's make it clear we're not using old style Spanish but then The adjectives Quichean and the like are clearly established in English, you don't change them, but I'd say the English trend is clearly to accept local changes into English. Certainly, we should at least have a coherent policy, for example, either include the glottalization as in Tz'utujil or not as in Kekchi. And a coherent policy is taking sides, you either follow individual-expert-X or you use the latest consensus spelling.
Let's see if anyone else has an opinion.--Homunq 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I just found ISO_639 which actually DOES have a standard English for all of these, the problem is I highly doubt (based on the internal inconsistencies mentioned above) that the current list uses the correct names down the line, and I see no easy way to do the search (given, for instance, that Cakchiquel comes out with 7 dialects, whereas even in the Rosetta project it only has 5.) So, I support using the correct ISO 639 English naming, but mentioning the ALMG as the preferred native spelling. Does anyone know how to search the 639 codes? --Homunq 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think using the Academia's orthography would be an attractive option, with a number of advantages: it is (mostly) consistent, it was specifically developed for these particular languages, and (importantly) a significant and ever-growing number of contemporary sources in the field of Maya studies use it (and do so deliberately). That is to say, this orthography is increasingly used in the papers, journals and (to a lesser extent) books written on Maya topics which are cited as references for Maya-related articles- at least those from the 1990s onwards. AFAIK the ratified part of ISO 639 is concerned with standardising the language codes, not their names.--cjllw | TALK 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, good to see someone who probably knows a lot more than I. What would you suggest for the Mexican languages and for the gendered endings? I think probably the "most English" answer would be to drop the endings, but the other way is probably more searchable; either way we should be consistent. Feel free to add your suggestions for specific languages above in some other formatting than the bold I've used, if it helps.
A note of context for those unfamiliar: these names are not the languages names for themselves. Most refer to themselves as "true language" or "our language" (for instance, Bats'il K'op in both Tzotzil and Tzeltal). If anything, these are the laguages' names for the ethnic groups (when disambiguation is necessary), though many of them have an Aztec (non-mayan) etymology. Should that go (edited) in the article itself?--Homunq 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary english-language Mayanist sources which have adopted this orthography apply it to Mayan-originated terminology in general, including instances where the language or term "comes from" outside of Guatemala itself; so there should be no issue in extending it for Mexico-based instances such as Yukatek or Wastek, for example. A cautionary note: sources do differ a bit in the extent by which they apply the Academia orthography: some use it for all Mayan terms, while others retain the "old" orthography for certain instances such as 'well-established' place names, language names and ethnonyms. Still others continue to use a Spanish-accented orthography in some cases (probably a reflection that spanish is also a lingua franca among researchers in the field). See also the WP:MESO proposal and discussion for applying consistent orthography here. The proposal is based more on its usage in archaeological/epigraphic contexts, research publications on modern Mayan languages themselves might possibly be a little different, I'm not that sure. Regardless of all this, I'd still think that ALMG orthography is well-suited to the task.

Re whether or how to indicate gendered endings, I agree that the "most english-sounding" would be to drop the endings, but could be pursuaded otherwise if we could come up with some consistent reasoning. And as for the cases where the language names (even under revised ALMG orthography) are exonymic: I would say that yes, it would be great to mention in the article itself the name(s) of the language used by the speakers themselves as well as discussing the etymologies of the various terms, however titling the article that way would be going a step too far. I think it would be better to preserve the concordance between the names of the peoples and their languages, insofar as this is possible.--cjllw | TALK 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what to prefer. I dont think following current wikipedia policies the Academia is the source to follow on an english language encyclopedia, I think that the article should be aimed at an english speaking audience and use the spelling for which they are more likely to search. On the other hand there are no reliable english standard either, not even within academia sso many languages have several names and even more spellings of these and it is a wilderness to try and decide which is more encyclopedic. I personally strongly dislike the gendered endings in an english context and feel that they will limit searchability quite a lot. Something I would like to see however would be a page on the academia and on reccomended orthographies in general and to have a link to this page on each of the separate language pages. Maunus 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
IMO we should not have too much of an issue in using ALMG orthography in an english language encyclopaedia, since it is adopted by a sizeable number of english language publications and works in the field. A general reader who has come across one of these contemporary sources would or should recognise the spelling (though equally I suppose a reader familiar with other or general sources will recognise different or former spellings). I can't really think of a way to establish with any confidence which spelling would be "most recognisable" to the general reader, particularly since it may be supposed that many of these languages are probably little-known outside of specialist areas.
Agree that it would be fruitless to attempt to determine which orthography is the most encyclopaedic, and that even within academic publications there are differences. Also, I'm more familiar with archaeological and epigraphic sources than modern linguistic ones- Maunus, are you or anyone else able to confirm whether modern Mayan languages research also has a general observance nowadays for ALMG conventions?
Even so, the ALMG system is a (or the) recognised authority here, and it at least does give reasonably comprehensive guidance on language representation. If our articles were to follow a system such as this, it will be less jarring to read than the current mix of othographical conventions within and between articles. There's also the danger that a reader could become confused as to whether similar spellings refer to the same entity, or really are referring to different ones. Of course, each article needs to give the explanation and list of orthographic alternatives.
In any case we'll have a number of redirects for each pointing to whichever spelling convention is chosen, so readers searching on any particular variation should hopefully end up at the desired target.
I think your idea on a general article covering orthographic standards, developments and concordance for Mayan languages is a good one.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, for the most part. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move for various Mayan language articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

OK, I'm nominating all of these for moves. I'll provide a link here for discussion. See just above for older discussion. If/when these moves happen, this page should be updated to reflect the new spelling, though generally the old should be left as a redirect (except for typo "Sikapense") --Homunq 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK here's the proposal from WP:RM. Feel free to cut and paste your own improved version...

Proposal specifics

This is a proposal to rename a number of articles on individual Mayan languages to a standardised orthography. Discussion for these moves is centralised here (note that a rename of this particular article, Mayan languages, is not part of the proposal).

This proposal combines several principles:

  1. That the languages' names be standardised according to the orthography conventions adopted and preferred by the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG)[1], a (or the) recognised authority for these languages. Rationale: it provides a consistent standard recognised in the field and is (increasingly frequently) employed by major english-language sources often cited in Maya-related articles; see also WP:MESO/G for some further background.
  2. That gendered endings (eg -o, -a) not be used. Rationale: not warranted in an english language context.
  3. That each language article title be of the form [[xx language]]. Rationale: following widely-observed practice for articles on languages generally, and to readily distinguish from articles on the peoples themselves.

See also the discussion above.

Articles affected by the proposal, and their currently designated targets, are as follows:

I needed to comment on the switch from "Yucatec" to "Yukatek". I studied and speak Yucatec Maya (as a scholar, but not a native speaker). However, I have lived and worked with the Maya people for nearly two decades. And I must say that this Wiki-Meso decision to switch to the modern revisionist Guatemalan spelling is surprising. I fully understand if a linguist would like to "purify" the spellings in their own articles. But for an encyclopedia, isn't the goal not to "break new ground" but to "inform the public"? All modern Yucatec speakers who know how to read or write use the "C" for non-glottalized consonant and the "k" for the glottalized consonant. Yucatec has two non-glottalized consonants, and therefore should be spelled with the letter "C". But, honestly, let's forget the details (which I would gladly provide more of). The hundreds of thousands of Maya who are now going online and getting higher educations... They did not go to the conference in Guatemala where someone decided to re-define how they should write their language. Please remember - their health education pamphlets, their government documents, the signs that tell them about their own past at all archaeological sites, and heck, EVEN THEIR OWN NAMES are written with the standard orthography (C not K in "Yucatan"). To allow such a revision in an encyclopedic resource would be to say that Wikipedia supports the complete revision of their current and living orthography. This is not just an academic issue. It is a cultural issue. Allow Wikipedia to be accessible to all. It is not the proper place for radical revisions of entire languages. Chunchucmil 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support, in-principle at least, per reasons cited. I think the ALMG orthography provides a clear and recognised orthographic guideline, in the absence of which the articles and mentions of these languages in en.wiki are presently all over the place.--cjllw | TALK 05:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lets do it. Its worth it to have a standardized orthography.Maunus 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ALMG standards are recognized "officially" in Guatemala, the only ones that make sense for Wikipedia (en, es, whatever). Thanks for taking this on. — MikeG (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows, please specifically comment on Chikomuseltek and Lacandon, I wrote the proposal but I'm not sure about these. --Homunq 09:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicomuceltec is extinct so it doesn't really matter what it is called. I think it should be kept unchanged though, it is beyond the governance of ALMG and references are likely to use the "classic" orthography. Lacandon is also sometimes spelled Lakantun but I don't know the status of this orthography and would also prefer it to unchanged so that its connection with the "selva lacandona" is not blurred.Maunus 11:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you might be coining a new name with Yukatek Sign Language — it gets no google hits at all. "Yucatec Maya Sign Language" appears to be the standard designation. "Mayan Sign Language" gets a few hits, as does "Nohya Sign Language". Even Lenguaje Mímico Maya, Lenguaje Manual Nohya, and Lenguaje Manual Maya get a couple each. It's a little more complicated, as at least one writer describes a group of related mayan sign languages in Guatemala and Mexico, including Highland Maya Sign Language, or what K'ichee'an people call Meemul Ch’aab’al. I think your plan makes sense, but I am hesitant to support renaming the language if noone outside of wikipedia has done so. ntennis 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm thinking of moving the Yucatec Maya Sign Language article to Mayan sign languages, expanding the scope a little. Would this be an acceptable solution? ntennis 08:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To me, obviously. It was not my intention to coin a term. --Homunq 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. ntennis 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Changing back Yukatek to Yucatec

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I needed to comment on the switch from "Yucatec" to "Yukatek". I studied and speak Yucatec Maya (as a scholar, but not a native speaker). However, I have lived and worked with the Maya people for nearly two decades. And I must say that this Wiki-Meso decision to switch to the modern revisionist Guatemalan spelling is surprising. I fully understand if a linguist would like to "purify" the spellings in their own articles. But for an encyclopedia, isn't the goal not to "break new ground" but to "inform the public"? All modern Yucatec speakers who know how to read or write use the "C" for non-glottalized consonant and the "k" for the glottalized consonant. Yucatec has two non-glottalized consonants, and therefore should be spelled with the letter "C". But, honestly, let's forget the details (which I would gladly provide more of). The hundreds of thousands of Maya who are now going online and getting higher educations... They did not go to the conference in Guatemala where someone decided to re-define how they should write their language. Please remember - their health education pamphlets, their government documents, the signs that tell them about their own past at all archaeological sites, and heck, EVEN THEIR OWN NAMES are written with the standard orthography (C not K in "Yucatan"). To allow such a revision in an encyclopedic resource would be to say that Wikipedia supports the complete revision of their current and living orthography. This is not just an academic issue. It is a cultural issue. Allow Wikipedia to be accessible to all. It is not the proper place for radical revisions of entire languages. Chunchucmil 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that the practice was different for Yucatec and that both c and k was used. Now that you say that for Yucatec the k represents the ejective you convince me that although it will be somewhat of a mess to change back all the links we should do it. Do you know anything a bout the orthography used for wastek? I know that it is also not governed by ALMG but that both spellings exist - is there any considerations towards the speakers them selves that would suggest using one over the other?Maunus 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I can say that the switch was made without the kind of input you're giving here. Based on what you say - and given that I'd bet Yucatec is the language with the highest literacy rate (percentage or absolute) of any of them - I have no reservations in switching it back, and even adding some of this info to the article. --Homunq 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) ps. If you have any other Yucatec perspective to add to the article - particularly the Literature section - that would be great.
OK, this change is done. This needs to go into the map and tree, but Madman, I suggest you wait a week to see if anyone squeals. --Homunq 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You were a little quick to do that Homunq. There are a whole bunch of redirects to the Yukatek Maya language page I hope you have time to start fixing those as well (I don't at the moment and will not have much time for editing untill after new year). Chunchumil: I hope you will read the article through and add anything you find missing and suggest changes and additions where they may be necessary -TRhe past weeks we have worked towards bettering the page a great deal but the more with a knowledge of Mayan working on the page the betterMaunus 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't been here for a week - didn't notice until after that the discussion was only hours old. But I fixed the double-redirects, and the article itself (which actually had one "Yukatec" as it was). There are 22 pages that go directly to Yukatek Maya Language and 19 that go directly to Yucatec Maya Language; most of the redirects are Yucatec something not Yukatek something; and Google gives exactly 10 times the hits for Yucatec as for Yukatek (225000 vs 22400); so I feel that this change is not as hasty or as messy as it may have seemed.--Homunq 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This morning (yes, this is what I'm doing on X-mas eve - my family is rolling their eyes at my stack of books while they watch x-mas movies) I just pulled down all of my books to re-check common usage on Maya spellings, and found a good summary of how I think this project should best proceed. Bear with me... Maya signage and common literature (such as health brochures, religious pamphlets and bibles) do still use the "c" vs "k" convention, as does one of my phrase books, and two colonial dictionaries. However, most of my modern scholarly dictionaries have generally agreed to use the K vs K’ spellings agreed upon in the "Cordemex" (edited by Alfredo Barrera Vasquez), including the latest dictionary published by the University of Yucatan. Now, the question is… which to use in Wikipedia? I personally think the best rationale was put forth in the introduction to John Montgomery’s Maya phrasebook. He uses the new standardized spellings (K and K’) for vocabulary entries, except for all place names and proper nouns. For these, he conforms to the spellings that have dominated the literature for over a century. This same rationale is also expressed in the U. of Yucatan publication (notice they didn’t change the name of their state or their university, just because they revised the spelling of “dog”). Otherwise, we would need to change the names of villages, towns and cities, archaeological sites, and even peoples’ names (which obviously would be extreme).
Thus, I suggest Wikipedia use spellings such as Yucatan and Yucatec Maya and Dzibilchaltun as opposed to the revised Ts’ibilchaltun. Since most of the time Wikipedia authors be using proper nouns as headings (not writing the articles themselves in Maya), revised spellings will not be necessary for most entries. Remember, users will be looking up words in Wiki that they see in other sources like archaeological textbooks and Lonely Planet guide books. These sources have all kept the original orthographic conventions, because they are place names and other proper nouns. Chunchucmil 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My excuse is that my family is still asleep :) (except my 2-year-old daughter, who is feeding me play-doh tortillas with avocado and salt). I added a note summarizing your analysis above to the writing systems section - if you could add the reference of the U of Yucatan dictionary there, that would be great. --Homunq 14:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

--This discussion has been moved to Talk:Yukatek Maya language--

As the Talk:Yukatek Maya language page stated that the conversation has moved back here, I'll continue my comments on this page. Homunq, I appreciate your efforts to move from the general to the specific in your revisions of my most recent edits, but unfortunately those revisions are not correct. I apologize, as this may simply reflect that I did not make myself clear. The "Cordemex" uses a revised orthography that is in most ways the same as the Guatemalan revisions. However, it is a scholarly publication on how to write the Maya language (created by a group of Yucatec Maya linguists after pouring through volumes and volumes that used different orthographies), but it is not a guide to modern usage (it is important to differentiate standardization from actual usage). Therefore, most Maya scholars (including archaeologists) use the Cordemex for translating Maya words and phrases in scholarly publications (such as full sentences written in Maya) instead of the Guatemalan guidelines. But they do NOT use the revised spellings of the Cordemex, NOR the Guatemalan convention, for place names. Instead, the centuries-old (non-standardized) orthography is used for the most common terms. For example, the Cordemex uses the K vs. K' as the non-glottalized and glottalized forms (just as the Guatemalan convention concluded). But the introduction to the Cordemex regularly refers to "Yucatan" and "Yucatec"! The Cordemex also uses the "w" in its phonetic orthography, yet in the introduction mentions "Huastec" (not Wastek). In other words, the general consensus that I have observed among scholars is that while we might be so bold as to revise the over-all written language (despite common usage), we cannot be so bold as to change the names of towns, cultures, people and languages. Does this make more sense? Please see how your revisions differ from mine, and please consider a re-revision. Chunchucmil 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
First, the conversation: Talk:Yukatek Maya language is, I think, the right place for the discussion of whether or not to move that page to Yucatec Maya language - the heading "move and move back" refers to the page itself, which I had moved and Infrogmation moved back, not to the discussion (which I would appreciate it if you would contribute to, over there). But here is the right place for discussing wording here on Mayan languages, as you are doing above.
Second... I'm really sorry if my edit is inaccurate, but I honestly can't see how what you're saying above differs from the sense of the page as it stands with my edits. Scholars, such as those writing the Cordemex, are reluctant to change the name of a people or a language, thus Yucatec remains Yucatec; but (partially-)representative bodies, such as the ALMG, are more courageous, thus Quiche is now generally K'iche'. This is the distinction I was trying to draw, as well as putting such a fine distinction after the basic data (general: many languages tend to follow ALMG, somewhot general: but Yucatec tends to follow Cordemex). (And I was actually trying to be conservative with this edit, because I saw that you had preserved my text about "the eight Mexican languages... acceptance is less complete" which you may have thought was based on something but was actually just my reading of your own criticism above. I was NOT implying that your edit was bad, I was trying to retract my own edit without stranding your latter one.) Please, you know more than I about this, go ahead and fix this as you see fit (including, if you think it's best, reverting that "general to specific" edit of mine, now sadly buried under other edits). Also, if you know anything about Centro de Lengua, Arte y Literatura Indígena (CELALI) and Tsotsil/Tzotzil, here would be the place to add it. --Homunq 23:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I wan't clear. What I meant was that IF the orthography of the Cordemex was adopted completely, scholars WOULD spell Yucatan with a "K" (so it is slightly misleading to say that the Cordemex set a standard for not using the revisions for proper nouns - this is not stated overtly, yet it is clear when reading "between the lines" in their preface). In other scholarly dictionaries (such as those by Montgomery and the latest from U. of Yucatan), this mode of non-conformity for proper nouns is made more explicit in their introductions. I think at the heart of this debate (and it IS a debate among some scholars) is that the revised orthographies are great for comparative linguistic studies, but overly "purist" when it comes to re-naming places and cultures that have been written about for centuries. By the way, I don't believe I deleted your "eight Mexican languages..." comment. I think someone else revised that. Let me remind everyone, I'm a Maya anthropologist/archaeologist (not strictly a linguist, although I have linguistic training). I took three graduate-level classes on Yucatec Maya, including Prehispanic, Colonial and Modern Maya, from one of the top Maya linguists - with the aid of Native Maya tutors. However, my practical knowledge comes from years of work among the Maya of Yucatan. My goal is to make Wikipedia entries useful based upon the *most commonly utilized* terminology (rather than cutting-edge revisionist entries). Students, professionals and tourists looking up such entries as "Dzibilchaltun" or "Huastec" or "Yucatan" should not be innundated with complicated orthographies that are intended more for comparative linguistics than the general public. Remember, even the government of Yucatan (under INAH) still uses the older orthography for the cultural displays they provide in museums and archaeological sites. None of this is "set in stone" yet, and it would be a shame to make Wikipedia less accessible to those who simply want info on places or people they visit. Chunchucmil 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So far we have three votes (Maunus, Homunq and Chunchucmil) to change and none to keep. I think that without further objections the change will be in order soon Maunus 17:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In anticipation of this move, I have corrected the content (but not the title) of the Yukatek Maya language page. I have also added some useful phrases in Maya for those who wish to "try their hand" at communicating in Maya when they visit the region. I hope I did not overstep my bounds with these edits, but I do think it may aid those interested in a general understanding of the language. Chunchucmil 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Could an administrator please move the page? I can't seem to do it myself because of the previous redirect.Maunus 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a request to move the page at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals. Madman 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The page has now been moved to Yucatec. Madman 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Question about language names

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In Ethnologue and in the German language Wikipedia article, I notice that many of the languages have a "-ko" or "-co" ending, e.g. "Jakalteko", "Tektiteko". Is it more common to use these "-o" endings?? Should we be using them? I would hate to have to change the article, though. Madman 14:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We took a decision to not use the genedered spanish endings here (idioma jakalteko but lengua jakalteka) - but that's not necesarrily true about other Wikipedias. Maunus 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mayan_languages/Language_name_Orthography,_ALMG_and_Cordemex_debate&oldid=1136999824"