Talk:Sotho language/Archive 1

I have reverted to an earlier version of the page, which eliminates a great deal of detail about the structure and pronunciation of the language. The information removed is of a highly specialised nature and is more suited to a language text book ( which I suspect is the source) than an encyclopedia. Tiles 08:48, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, it is NOT from a language text book. I SPEAK SESOTHO AS A FIRST LANGUAGE. What, doesn't Sesotho need to be described in detail? I'm new here, could you perhaps suggest to me where my contribution would be more appropriate???

See also the Talk:Critique_on_South_African_Sesotho. Looks like we're agreed the data is staying - please don't just delete contributions without discussion/alternatives! Greenman 23 Oct 2003

Tiles, could you go into a bit more detail as to why you think this information does not belong in the article? Compare French language, for example. Onebyone 15:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If this article reaches the standard of French language then it will be an excellent encyclopedic work. That would be a good template for Tebello to follow. My concern was that there was too much technical linguistics and not much about the language. The article on Xhosa language is an example of what I consider a good example of an encyclopedic article. If Tebello had an account I would have contacted him on his Talk page but at least my intervention has led to a debate on how the article can develop and constructive advice to the author. I am not in the habit of deleting work without comment and I am perfectly happy to enter into constructive debate. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance the cause of this encyclopedia. Tiles 20:35, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Okay, so my "I hope that Tiles guy..." comment was a big mistake. The text (formerly) on this page was written solely by myself and is not Tiles' work.
I made the comment, in jest, since Tiles had twice erased my edition of Sesotho, and I thus decided to start my own page by copying from Sesotho, hoping to hide my tracks from Tiles and his lust to make sure that I don't contribute to Wikipedia. I took care to delete the original content of Sesotho from the top of my text.
Be so kind as to bring my work back, thank you.
Tebello Thejane, 13:02 23 Oct 2003 (CAT).

Dumela, Tebello. Kena ka kgotso! I hope you will set up an account and become a valuable contributor to wikipedia. Tiles 20:35, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I have moved the content from Sesotho to here. This article still needs a lot of work and needs to be fixed up to follow the new language template, but it is not unrecoverable and reverting to the earlier version is a mistake, I believe. I am also going to propose deletion of several unnecessary articles. I think one article is sufficient for this page for now. Daniel Quinlan 12:33, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot! 8-D
You have just saved me a trip to the doctor, and the page now looks GRRRRRREAT!! I will do Wikipedia (and myself) a favour and continue working on this page.
What do you mean by "it looks like an editorial"? What's an "editorial supposed to be? I AM only 19 years old ;-) — 146.141.15.225

An "editorial" is an "article in a publication expressing the opinion of its authors". I mean that you need to write with a Neutral point of view. Try to stick to the facts and avoid adding your own opinion. Daniel Quinlan 12:55, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello, Tebello! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Have you considered creating a user account? You can do this by clicking on the "Log in" button at top right, and then creating a new account there. Then all your edits from then on will have your name on them, rather than your IP address. Having an account also has several other benefits, like access to the watchlist and page move features. -- The Anome 13:00, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

"abstract nouns belong here, therefore..."

Tebello, that barely makes sense to me. Please remember that you are writing for people who probably know nothing about Sesotho. Also try to avoid teaching people the language itself, but focus on writing about the language. Daniel Quinlan 13:15, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

Tebello, I was interested in your article and I read it because I wanted to learn about the Sesotho Language but the article was far too difficult for me and I simply couldn't understand it. However it is obvious that Sesotho is very different from English or any of the other languages I am aquainted with.

I sometimes find it helps me with a strange language if I approach it as a baby might do. A childish approach to a language can always be built on and expanded later. I don't think Wikipedia would be upset or insulted if you could find a way to explain Sesotho as you would for a five year old child. That would be a good start and from there people could ask you for more information as they feel they need it.

It is obvious that you are an expert in your subject, a subject in which most of the world is largely ignorant. Wikipedia needs experts like you so I hope you will stay around and share your valuable knowledge with us.

ping 07:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello people!!!

It would appear that I have NOT died from a heartattack (yet). Sorry for the 4 day break, but I think that youa'll might have to start getting used to long disappearences from me ( final University exams - I just finished writing/failing Mathematics).
Quinlan, an "abstract noun" is a concept which exists in English as well, for example, "beautiful" is an adjective, but "beauty" is an abstract noun, ie. a noun denoting a non-concrete concept, like emotions. Because of the things they denote, abstract nouns can't have plurals. Since most of class 14's words are abstract (in most Bantu languages), there is no "official" plural class for 14, so we have to put the members of 14 and the plurals of those very few words in 14 that HAVE plurals, in the same class. Catch my drift??
I'm sorry people that my article seems way too difficult for the most of you, but I wrote as an amateur linguist adressing other (amateur) linguists. I also realise that it's a bit disorganised, and a quite incomplete, but I will fix it up, starting today.
I don't understand why many of you say that I should talk about the language, instead of teaching it to you. Aren't encyclopedia all about giving people a whole bunch of knowledge and expecting them to gradually assimilate it all? Or is Wikipedia supposed to be a bit more friendly?
Thanks a million and one for all your inputs. Tebello 11:37 29 October 2003 (CAT)
For the most degenerate, retrograde, racist, ignorant, and down-right not nice cow-patty that you'll ever see in your entire life (more or less), go to dictionary.com and search for "basuto"[sic].

The reason people are saying you should write about the language rather than teaching it, is that there are certain things which Wikipedia is not. One of the things that it isn't is a textbook on every subject imaginable, so it doesn't need tutorials. The idea is that people coming to this article will want to know about Sesotho, but won't be expecting to learn to speak it. They wouldn't go to an encyclopedia for that, they'd go to a language textbook. So the important thing is that they find out the kinds of things that they most likely to want to know, without having to actually learn the language. For a comparison, open up any encyclopedia to the article on any language - it won't be teaching people to speak the language, it will be telling them things that non-speakers might find interesting and useful. Onebyone 14:00, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

As soon as I know how (or if someone tells me), I'll indicate the nouns and semi-vowels with the appropriate marks. What I need is:

an o with an upside-down ^ above it like for "the aspirated ts"

an e with the same

an o with a bar over it

an e with the same

an o with ' in the direction of "\" over it

an e with the same

I would greatly appreciate any help. Tebello Thejane 15:02 29 October 2003 (CAT).

You can try the characters below the editing box or the following codes from Table of Unicode characters, 128 to 999

for È è Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ě ě use È è Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ě ě

for Ò ò Ō ō Ŏ ŏ Ǒ ǒ use Ò ò Ō ō Ŏ ŏ Ǒ ǒ

--Henrygb 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I came across this page, as I have been putting things Zulu into Wikipedia, and I think it is worthy of being a featured article! Wizzy 20:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The article contains a lot of interesting information, but it would profit from the attention of a linguist with some knowledge of the Bantu languages. Burschik 15:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Can someone please explain why this article talks about Sesotho and not Sotho? The article for Spanish isn't at Español, the one on German isn't at Deutch, French one not at Français, etc, etc. The language names in the article constantly refers to the names in those languages (isiZulu, Setswana, Sesotho sa Leboa) instead of the English names (Zulu, Tswana, Northern Sotho). Surely the English names are more suited for the English Wikipedia instead of a Sotho/Zulu mix, not so?

Because it's Sesotho, not Sotho. Just like it's Mafikeng, not Mafeking. And they are Inuits, not Eskimos. And they are Khoikhoin, not Hottentots. And I am an African, not a Zulu-Kaffir. The names do not spontaneously change just because the English want them to.

The english have a bad track record whe it comes to preserving even their own words. Just because the French were richer then them and they could afford to buy certain meats, English uses "Beef", "Pork", "Mutton" instead of "Cow", "Pig", "Sheep", but they still use "chicken" because everyone could afford it.

Let me guess - Sesotho is less of a language than Greek, French, Latin, Arabic and all the other places English stole words from? The South African Oxford Dictionary says that words like "Sesotho" and "isiZulu" are very valid indeed.

- ZyXoas.

Oh, and it's Hangul, not "Korean".

I'm trying to get a discussion going on precisely the issue of Sesotho/Sotho, at Talk:African languages#Style for African language names. Drop in and give your two thebes' worth? Most grateful JackyR 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Sotho is a group of languages including Setswana, Sesotho, and Sesotho sa Leboa. So calling this language Sotho seems to be a clear mistake. --Revolución (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too - Sotho is an umbrella term for those languages (Sesotho, Sesotho sa Leboa and Setswana), like the name Nguni is the corresponding group name for Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swazi. Joziboy 28 Feb 2006, 19:25 UTC

No, Sotho is and umbrella term, but it's also the name used to refer to the language Sesotho (once called southern Sotho) as well as to the people who speak that language, see Demographics of Lesotho.

I left SA a while ago, but from what I understand, the languages are coming to be referred to in everyday SA English usage by the names Sesotho, isiZulu etc., although I don't think those terms have gained much currency in English usage outside of the country so I don't think those are suitable article names. --Batamtig 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, based on some encyclopedia searches, I have to say that Sesotho has become common English usage. However, it seems that isiZulu, isiXhosa have not. Sala hantle (hope I spelled it right). --Batamtig 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Serotse

Another (more common, but not original) name for Serotse is Lozi. The name Lozi doesn't sound like it's from an SLG language. Z is not a consonant in the SLG languages. Note that in Nguni languages, Sesotho "r" is commonly mipronounced as "l" (the exceptions are isiXhosa, which got "r" from the KhoiSan, and siNdebele, which got "r" from Setswana), also, Sesotho languages commonly mispronounce Nguni "z" as "ts" (it comes from the same place - Kintu "lǐ" or Kintu "lŷa", this is why Sesotho "li"/"di" becomes "ts", because the Kintu "ǐ" becomes a "ŷ", note how the perfect form of Nguni "hlala" is "hlezi"). Yes, I also wish I had more time to write articles for Wikipedia... -ZyXoas 198.54.202.226 (still can't remember my bloody password!!!!)

I just saw an alleged example paragraph in Serotse, apparently it does have "Z" as a consonant. I wonder... -ZyXoas 198.54.202.234

Regulated by

Isn't it regulated by the Pan South African National Language Board (at least in RSA)? -ZyXoas 198.54.202.234

Tried to fix it a bit

Went through it today (one of those occassions when I have access to a computer with the internet) and fixed a few mistakes.

Note to anyone who wants to refer to Sesotho when talking about Bantu Classes: Sesotho has 9 classes - not 18. Read the article carefully.

Zyxoas 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone please help me.

In South Africa, if someone were to use the term "Zulu" instead of "isiZulu", would that be misunderstood? — D. Wo. 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be easily understood. You may want to discuss this more at Talk:African languages#Style for African language names to prevent any repetition :) Greenman 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You might also like to explain why you're desperate to have this article say "Zulu". How about actually adding to the article, instead? I would love it if you did, and Wikipedia would actually benefit much more from that action. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, first let me thank you for belittling my contributions to Wikipedia; I appreciate it. You see, on Wikipedia, there are people who go around and do nothing except edit pages. That's what I usually do. Wikipedia does benefit from editing. That's why there is an entire manual of style existing with that purpose in mind. So forgive me if I might be a tad upset when someone tells me that my additions don't benefit the article in question.

Okay, let me now explain why I'm desperate to have this article say "Zulu" instead of "isiZulu". Basically, it's confusing. When speakers of English from places other than South Africa (which, based on the proportion of South-African English speakers to global English speakers, it is safe to say that more non-South-African English speakers read this than South-African English speakers) read about languages such as kiSwahili and isiZulu, they will often become confused as most know them as Zulu and Swahili. For example, when I read articles that used isiZulu insead of Zulu, I assumed that isiZulu was a different language (I have since learned that that's not the case). However, there is the argument that isiZulu is South-African English, and, since the article deals with a South-African topic, the article should be written in South-African English. Yes, that is a valid point, but, as Greenman has said, "Zulu" would be perfectly understood in South Africa. In addition, the article title for the language in question says "Zulu language" not "isiZulu", and I would imagine that an article about a language that is native to South Africa qualifies as a South-African topic. Therefore, usage of Zulu would also qualify as South-African English. So, since both forms are acceptable in South-African English, but only one form is acceptable in non-South-African English, wouldn't it make sense to use the form that's universally understood instead of one that's only familiar in South Africa? Therefore, it makes little sense to write an article in coloquial language when a perfectly common form of language could be used instead.

Now, I realise that this could change in other English dialects worldwide. However, for the time being, Wikipedia uses "Zulu" and not "isiZulu". — D. Wo. 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are "a tad" upset about me "belittling" your edits!? Imagine how the person who almost single handedly wrote this unbecomingly detailed article feels when you make controversial changes and take advantage of the fact that usually his only access to the internet is a limited mobile phone? I've actually been planning on writing more content and asking other editors to add it to the article when I have time. So you'll understand if I am starting to get quite pissed-off with you starting an edit-war, right? I would love it if you'd add to the content (note how I didn't argue with people who fixed the tables, added IPA, added the map, fixed spelling and grammar mistakes, reworded obscure sentences, added Wikilinks, ...). No, I don't own this article, but I'm knowledgeable and sensitive to it's subject matter, and I might be a technocrat (*ghasp!!*)
If someone sees "isiZulu" in this article and they click the link, guess where it takes them (no prizes for guess the correct answer)? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so, we don't like each other. That happens. Still, we have to work with each other on this. I have the time, and I am perfectly willing to change all the isiZulu references to Zulu (and isiXhosa to Xhosa and so on and so forth). Since both forms are acceptable South-African English but only one form is universally acceptable (so far - that could change, and if it turns out in years to come that isiZulu becomes the more universally recognised form over Zulu, I would change it to isiZulu), is there any reason why changing these terms to Zulu and Xhosa would be bad? — D. Wo. 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, Dwo, it simply reinforces my initial opinion of you. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Threat? — D. Wo. 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eish, play nice you two :) How about a little disclaimer at the start of all South African language articles that explains the difference in nomenclature? Something like "this article utilises the Kintu language names, such as isiXhosa for the Xhosa language, isiZulu for the Zulu language" etc. Would that clear it up for readers from outside SA? Joziboy 08:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely deplore that idea, but it wouldn't be the first thing on Wikipedia that I deplore, so I guess that I really wouldn't mind, but I still haven't gotten an answer about why changing the terms would be bad. Is there any reason why changing these terms to Zulu and Xhosa would be bad? If there are bad reasons, then sure; I'll make a template, but if no bad reason exists, what should hinder changing them? — D. Wo. 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate has been ongoing on wikipedia for months. Have you seen the "Zulu/isiZulu debate" section that I put up on the Zulu language page? Joziboy 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean Bantu languages, Joziboy. I reiterate: these African language articles need to have content added to them, this is my agenda. I still don't see why you're so keen to have these articles reflect your POV when the rest of us have been discussing this for so long. Indeed, what non-Africans think of this issue should really not matter much since they have little to do with the subject matter. How many people outside of South Africa do you think worry about the Zulu/isiZulu issue? This is petty compared to the other numerous problems these articles have, and I was once again ask you to be part of the solution, not yet another problem. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the solution? Hmm, I do happen to believe that editing an article qualifies as contributing I don't know how to speak these South-African languages or possess resources about these languages (By the way, does anyone know of a good website where I can learn Tswana?), but I know a lot about English. Since the article is written in English, I can edit the article without having to actually speak the language myself.

Again, what would be so horrible about changing the terms from forms like isiZulu and seTswana to Zulu and Tswana? One thing that I do know about these languages is that, both forms are valid, South-African English and both terms accurately identify the same language. However, one form is utilised universally while the other is colloquial. This makes sense to me. So, what's your reasoning for utilising isiZulu, isiXhosa, seTswana, etc.? — D. Wo. 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha, you're the one who told me it was Kinto, Tebello! Unless I just completely misunderstood :) Joziboy 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "seTswana" - it just goes to show how little you know. Please go away. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Because the article on Tswana shows that it's the native name for the Tswana languauge. This article itself even mentions Setswana.

Notice that I'm not asking you to go away. — D. Wo. 07:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be nice here. You will only waste your time if you talk down on each other. I came as I saw there was a request for a third opinion. I agree with D.Wo. that if there is a good reason to use a certain terminology it should be easy to line it out shortly. It should be taken for granted that when there is a disagreement about the content of an article a wikipedian who asks something gets a polite answer. Socafan 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we got a third opinon on this. Zyxoas, I'm still needing your reasons for why it would be bad to change. — D. Wo. 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this debate really gets people worked up. D. Wo., here's this debate again at Template talk:Languages of South Africa. Joziboy 08:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sotho language group census

In the article I read that "It is most closely related to four other languages in the Sotho language group" but when I go to the linked article it appears that the group in question only contains three languages. What's up with this? --Haruo 08:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just a minor error. Please fix it. It's most closely related to 3 other languages: Setswana, Sesotho sa Leboa, and Serotse. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)